This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

Under the marketing order, California kiwifruit handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable kiwifruit for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on August 1 and ends on July 31.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2013, and effective on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 62959, Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0071; FV13-920-2 IR), § 920.213 was amended by decreasing the assessment rate established for kiwifruit grown in California for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal years from $0.035 to $0.025 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. The decrease in assessment rate will provide sufficient revenue to meet the Committee's expenses while maintaining a financial reserve within the maximum amount permitted under the order, which is approximately one fiscal period's expense.

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

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

There are approximately 178 kiwifruit growers in the production area and approximately 28 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.

The California Agricultural Statistics Service, (CASS) reported total California kiwifruit production for the 2011-12 season at 37,700 tons, with an average price of $775 per ton. Based on the average price and shipment information provided by the CASS and the Committee, it could be concluded that the majority of kiwifruit handlers would be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. Based on kiwifruit production and price information, as well as the total number of California kiwifruit growers, average annual grower revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of California kiwifruit producers may also be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal years from $0.035 to $0.025 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2013-14 expenditures of $113,550 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 9-kilo volume-fill container. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.010 lower than the 2012-13 rate. The quantity of assessable kiwifruit for the 2013-14 fiscal year is estimated at 2,600,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers. Thus, the $0.025 rate should provide $65,000 in assessment income and when combined with carry-in funds and interest income, should be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting. All entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before November 22, 2013. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS_FRDOC_0001-1100 .

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (78 FR 62959, October 23, 2013), will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U. S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” The list of “covered products” under EPCA includes dehumidifiers, which are the subject of today's rule. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(11).

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of products must use to: (1) Ensure that their products meet the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA; and (2) make representations about the efficiency of those products. DOE must use the test procedures to ensure compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under section 6293 must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) amended EPCA to specify that the dehumidifier test criteria used under the ENERGY STAR  1 program in effect as of January 1, 2001, must serve as the basis for the DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers, unless revised by DOE. (EPACT, section 135(b); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) The ENERGY STAR test criteria required that the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA) standard CAN/CSA-C749-1994 (R2005), “ Performance of Dehumidifiers,” be used to calculate the energy factor (EF) and that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1, “Dehumidifiers,” be used to measure capacity. The ENERGY STAR test criteria did not specify which version of ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1, “Dehumidifiers,” was to be used, although the version in effect on January 1, 2001, was ANSI/AHAM DH-1-1992. DOE adopted these test criteria, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test procedure for dehumidifiers at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix X in 2006. 71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366, 713667-68 (Dec. 8, 2006).

On October 31, 2012, DOE published a final rule to establish a new test procedure for dehumidifiers that references ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2008, “Dehumidifiers,” (ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008) rather than the ENERGY STAR test criteria for both energy use and capacity measurements. 77 FR 65995 (Oct. 31, 2012). The final rule also adopted standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the requirement in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) for DOE to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) This new DOE test procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X1 (“appendix X1”), establishes a new metric, integrated energy factor (IEF), which incorporates measures of active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use. Appendix X1 is not currently required to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards, but would be required after the compliance date of any amended standards that include standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Manufacturers may currently use the test procedure set forth in either appendix X or appendix X1 to make representations related to active mode energy consumption of dehumidifiers; however, manufacturers are required to use the test procedure set forth in appendix X1 to make any representations related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption.

On October 22, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (“October 2013 NOPR”) proposing to require manufacturers to test using the active mode provisions in appendix X1 to determine compliance with the existing energy conservation standards. DOE determined that the active mode provisions of appendix X1 are the functional equivalent of the active mode provisions of appendix X. In addition, appendix X1 in its entirety would be required for use by manufacturers that make representations of standby mode or off mode energy use, and, after the compliance date for any amended energy conservation standards that incorporate standby mode or off mode energy use, to demonstrate compliance with those standards. In addition, 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , the existing appendix X would be removed from the Federal Register , and appendix X1 would be re-designated as appendix X. 78 FR 62488 (Oct. 22, 2013).

In the October 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that although manufacturers may currently test dehumidifiers using the test procedure set forth in either appendix X or appendix X1 to determine compliance with existing energy conservation standards and to make representations related to active mode energy consumption, DOE believes that manufacturers and test laboratories typically use ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 for such purposes, consistent with the requirements of appendix X1. DOE further noted that the use of the current version of ANSI/AHAM DH-1 is required to be used for other industry testing purposes, such as for the AHAM dehumidifier verification program, and at this time ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 is the current version. In addition, appendix X is functionally equivalent to the active mode provisions of appendix X1. 78 FR 62488, 62488 (Oct. 22, 2013).

Therefore, DOE proposed in the October 2013 NOPR that, as of 30 days after publication of the final rule, manufacturers would demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards using appendix X1 (re-designated as appendix X) and that appendix X would no longer be used and would be removed from the Federal Register . DOE also proposed to clarify that, to preclude unnecessary testing burden, manufacturers that do not make representations with respect to standby mode and off mode energy consumption may perform only the active mode test provisions when testing to determine compliance with existing standards. Manufacturers would have 180 additional days to make any changes needed to representations, including labels, certification reports, marketing materials, etc., although DOE did not expect any modifications would be needed because the proposal would not change measured energy consumption. Finally, DOE proposed to amend the test procedures at 10 CFR 430.23(z) to require that EF, when measured, be determined according to the relevant active mode provisions of appendix X1 (re-designated as appendix X), and IEF, when measured, be determined according to appendix X1 (re-designated as appendix X) in its entirety. Id.

In response to the October 2013 NOPR, AHAM expressed support for DOE's proposal to require the use of the active mode provisions of appendix X1 to determine compliance with existing energy conservation standards. According to AHAM, current practice is to test according to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008. In addition, AHAM agreed that appendix X is functionally equivalent to the active mode provisions of appendix X1, and that the proposal would not be expected to cause changes in measured dehumidifier energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 2)  2 AHAM also submitted suggested clarifications to the active mode provisions in appendix X1 related to control settings and psychrometer requirements. DOE will address such proposals in a separate rulemaking. In consideration of this support and for the reasons discussed previously, DOE adopts in this final rule the amendments that were proposed in the October 2013 NOPR.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335211, “Electric Housewares and Household Fan Manufacturing,” which applies to dehumidifier manufacturers, is 750 employees.

Most of the manufacturers supplying residential dehumidifiers are large multinational corporations. DOE surveyed the AHAM member directory to identify manufacturers of residential dehumidifiers. DOE then consulted publicly-available data, purchased company reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted manufacturers, where needed, to determine if they meet the SBA's definition of a “small business manufacturing facility” and have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. Based on this analysis, DOE identified five small businesses that manufacture residential dehumidifiers.

Today's final rule amends DOE's test procedures for dehumidifiers by requiring use of the procedures at appendix XI (re-designated as appendix X), which DOE understands is consistent with current industry practice. These procedures require use of an updated industry dehumidifier test method, which may potentially require manufacturers to install a larger test chamber and different air handling equipment. However, many manufacturers may already be using ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 in certifying their products. DOE notes that one of the small businesses has products listed in AHAM's current dehumidifier database of verified products, indicating that those tests were conducted according to DH-1-2008. In addition, AHAM selected an independent test laboratory to conduct dehumidifier testing and verification for its certification program using DH-1-2008. It is likely that this laboratory also performs testing for manufacturers to determine compliance with energy conservation standards in the same facility as the AHAM verification testing. Therefore, DOE concluded in the October 2012 final rule that established these procedures that small businesses will not be likely to require investments in facility upgrades due to the requirement to use the DOE dehumidifier test procedure that references DH-1-2008.

For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that today's final rule requiring earlier use of these procedures, consistent with current industry practice, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Manufacturers of residential dehumidifiers must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for dehumidifiers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including dehumidifiers. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

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.

In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for dehumidifiers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. DOE required the use of a commercial standard (DH-1-2008) in the October 2012 final rule. This rule requires earlier use of the October 2012 test procedures in this rulemaking, but does not require the use of a commercial standard, so these requirements do not apply.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A1 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “C-series”). The C-series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

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

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

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

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

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

The C-series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The C-series airplanes will have an autobrake system. This is a pilot-selectable function that allows earlier maximum braking at landing without pilot pedal input. When the autobrake system is armed before landing, it automatically commands maximum braking at main wheels touchdown. Normal procedures remain unchanged and call for manual braking after nose wheel touchdown.

Section 25.493 addresses braked roll loads but does not contain a specific “pitchover” requirement addressing the loading on the nose gear, the nose gear surrounding structure, and the forward fuselage. Moreover, § 25.493 specifies airplane attitudes in accordance with figure 6 of appendix A to part 25, which are level landing attitudes. For airplanes with traditional braking systems, the current ground load requirements are considered adequate for the design of the nose gear and airframe structure. However, the C-Series airplane autobrake system, which could apply maximum braking at the main wheels with the airplane in a tail-down attitude well before the nose touches down, will cause a high nose gear sink rate and potentially higher gear and airframe loads.

Part 25 does not contain adequate requirements to address the potentially higher structural loads that could result from this type of braking system. In addition, the effects on fatigue covered by § 25.571 also need to be considered. Therefore, FAA has determined that additional airworthiness standards are needed for the certification of this unusual design feature. These special conditions propose airworthiness standards for the certification of the C-series airplanes with an autobrake system.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. FAA-2013-0942 for the Bombardier C-series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2013 (78 FR 67321). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

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

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

Autobraking System Loads. A landing pitchover condition must be addressed that takes into account the effect of the autobrake system. The airplane is assumed to be at the design maximum landing weight, or at the maximum weight allowed with the autobrake system on. The airplane is assumed to land in a tail-down attitude at the speeds defined by § 25.481. Following main gear contact, the airplane is assumed to rotate about the main gear wheels at the highest pitch rate generated by the autobrake system. This is considered a limit load condition from which ultimate loads must also be determined. Loads must be determined for a critical fuel and payload distribution and centers of gravity. Nose gear loads, as well as airframe loads, must be determined. The airplane must support these loads as described in § 25.305.

In addition to the above airworthiness standards, fatigue loads must also be determined and applied in accordance to § 25.571.

On February 9, 2009, Learjet Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane (hereafter referred to as the “Model LJ-200”). The Model LJ-200 is a business class airplane powered by two high-bypass turbine engines with an estimated maximum takeoff weight of 35,550 pounds and an interior configuration for up to 10 passengers.

The current design includes a skin-stringer fuselage configuration. The pressure fuselage will consist of monolithic carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) skin, with CFRP and metallic frames above floor level, and CFRP longerons and stringers. All substructure will be mechanically fastened to the skin. Fasteners for stringers aligned along the length of the co-cured splice will provide fail-safe capability for the splice. Cabin entry door frames, over-wing exit door frames, and frames below floor level will be metallic. Attachment of pressure bulkheads, windshield frame, and splicing concepts will be adjusted for any skin thickness variation that occurs. The wing consists of resin transfer infusion skins with composite spars and metallic ribs. The empennage consists of composite sandwich skins with metallic spars and ribs. The airframe has a sandwich construction for the nose and empennage structures.

There are no existing regulations that adequately address the potential difference between metallic fabricated airplanes and composite fabricated airplanes with regards to impact response characteristics for what are considered survivable crash conditions. The CFRP fuselage constitutes a novel and unusual design feature for a transport category airplane. These special conditions are necessary to ensure a level of safety equivalent to that provided by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Learjet Inc. must show that the Model LJ-200 meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model LJ-200 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model LJ-200 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

The Model LJ-200 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Hybrid construction using both composite and metallic materials in the structure for which the crashworthiness responses for occupant safety may not be equivalent to that of all-metallic structure.

The Model LJ-200 fuselage is fabricated using CFRP skins with aluminum ribs and stringers. This hybrid construction may behave differently from similar, fully-metallic structure due to differences in material ductility, stiffness, failure modes, and energy absorption characteristics. Therefore, the impact response characteristics of the Model LJ-200 must be evaluated to ensure the survivable crashworthiness characteristics are not significantly different than those of a similarly-sized airplane fabricated from traditionally-used metallic materials.

The FAA and industry have been working together for many years to understand how transport airplane occupant safety can be improved for what are considered survivable accidents. This work has involved examining airplane accidents, conducting tests to simulate crash conditions, and developing analytical modeling of a range of crash conditions, all with the purpose of providing further insight into the factors that can influence occupant safety. Results of this on-going effort have enabled specific changes to regulatory standards and design practices to improve occupant safety. This evolution is reflected in changes to the part 25 emergency landing condition regulations. For example, airplane emergency load factors in § 25.561, General, have been increased, and passenger seat dynamic load conditions have been added (§ 25.562, Emergency landing dynamic conditions ).

The seat dynamic load conditions were added to the regulations based on FAA and industry tests and a review of accidents. They reflect horizontal and vertical accelerations/time environment generated by previously certificated airplane designs given conditions that were survivable. These tests also demonstrated that the performance of the airframe was acceptable in a dynamic impact event. In the evolution of the regulations, there is at present no specific dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane-level crashworthiness. However, the FAA requires an assessment of each new model airplane to ensure that the airplane will not significantly depart from typical dynamic characteristics found in previously certificated designs.

The nature of the assessment is largely dependent on the similarities and differences between the new type design and previously certificated airplanes. Such an assessment ensures that the level of safety of the new composite designs corresponds to the level of safety achieved with similar metallic designs around which the existing regulations were written. If significant trends in industry warrant change to the existing regulations, the FAA and industry rulemaking process may be used to develop an appropriate dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane level crashworthiness.

The FAA and industry have collected a significant amount of experimental data as well as data from crashes of transport category airplanes that demonstrated a high occupant survival rate at vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec (on a single aisle airplane). Based on this information, the FAA finds it appropriate and necessary for an assessment of the Model LJ-200 to span a range of airplane vertical descent velocities (up to 30 ft/sec, or that appropriate for a comparable size airplane).

The FAA expects the Model LJ-200 to exhibit similar crashworthiness capabilities under foreseeable survivable impact events as achieved by previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size and configuration. In order to make this assessment, criteria need to be established by which the similarities and differences between new type designs and previously certificated airplanes may be analytically evaluated. Based on the FAA's evaluation of the intent of existing regulations, the following areas need to be evaluated to demonstrate comparable behavior of the Model LJ-200 design to currently certificated transport category airplanes:

• Retention of items of mass. It must be shown that the occupants, i.e., passengers, flight attendants, and flight crew, will be protected during the impact event from release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to the impact loads and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structures.

• Maintenance of occupant emergency egress paths. The airframe must not deform such that rapid evacuation of occupants is impeded.

• Maintenance of acceptable acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants.

• Maintenance of a survivable volume. All areas of the airplane occupied for takeoff and landing must be shown to provide a survivable volume during and after the impact event.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-08-SC for the Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2013 (78 FR 65235). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10. Should Learjet Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10 airplanes.

In order to demonstrate an equivalent level of occupant safety and survivability to that provided by previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size and configuration under foreseeable survivable impact events, Learjet Inc. must demonstrate that the Model LJ-200-1A10 meets the following criteria for a range of airplane vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec:

1. Retention of items of mass. The occupants, i.e., passengers, flight attendants, and flightcrew, must be protected during the impact event from release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to the impact loads and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structures. The applicant must show that loads due to the impact event and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structure at the interface of the airplane structure to seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass are comparable to those of previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size for the range of descent velocities stated above. The attachments of these items need not be designed for static emergency landing loads in excess of those defined in § 25.561 if impact response characteristics of the Model LJ-200-1A10 yield load factors at the attach points comparable with those expected for a previously certificated transport category airplane of similar size.

2. Maintenance of acceptable acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants. The applicant must show that the vertical acceleration levels experienced at the seat/floor interface and loads experienced by the occupants during the impact event are consistent with those found in § 25.562(b) or with the levels expected for a previously certificated comparable transport category airplane of similar size.

3. Maintenance of a survivable volume. The applicant must show that all areas of the airplane occupied for takeoff and landing provide a survivable volume comparable to that of previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size during and after the impact event. This means that structural deformation will not result in infringement of the occupants' normal living space significantly affecting their survivability or egress.

4. Maintenance of occupant emergency egress paths. The applicant must show that the airframe deformation after the vertical impact event does not impede the rapid evacuation of occupants comparable to previously certified transport category airplanes of similar size.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2003-19-11, Amendment 39-13314 (68 FR 55812, September 29, 2003). AD 2003-19-11 applied to certain Learjet Inc. Model 60 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49232). The NPRM was prompted by a report that airplanes produced since 2003 might also be subject to the unsafe condition; and that the minimum allowable clearance is not established in the airplane maintenance information. The NPRM proposed to continue to require determining if a certain fuel crossflow tube is installed; and follow-on/corrective actions, as applicable. The NPRM also proposed to require determining if a certain fuel crossflow tube is installed, performing repetitive measurements of the fuel crossflow tube and surrounding valves and cables, and doing corrective actions if necessary. In addition, the NPRM proposed to expand the applicability of AD 2003-19-11. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing and consequent failure of the fuel crossflow tube due to inadequate clearance between the tube and the flight control cables, which could result in loss of fuel from one fuel tank during normal operating conditions or loss of fuel from both main fuel tanks during fuel cross-feeding operations.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 49232, August 13, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49232, August 13, 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 49232, August 13, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 264 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

We 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 38608). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks in stringer splices at body station STA 360 and STA 908, between stringer (S) S-10L and S-10R; cracks in butt straps between S-5L and S-3L, and S-3R and S-5R; vertical chem-mill fuselage skin cracks at certain butt joints; and an instance of cracking that occurred in all those three structural elements on one airplane. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for any cracking of stringer splices and butt straps, and related corrective and investigative actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the three structural elements, which could result in the airplane not being able to sustain limit load requirements and possibly result in uncontrolled decompression.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 38608, June 27, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested clarification that Table 11, “Stringer Splice Post Repair Inspection,” in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, is not required by paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 38608, June 27, 2013). Boeing suggested that paragraph (h) of the NPRM be revised to include an exception phrase that references paragraph (i) of the NPRM. Boeing stated that the inspections specified in Table 11, “Stringer Splice Post Repair Inspection,” in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, are required to support operating requirements for complying with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). Boeing also stated that the way the sentences of paragraph (h) of the NPRM are arranged, the sentences for doing corrective actions and repeating inspections seem to link the corrective actions and the repetitive inspections and imply that Table 11, “Stringer Splice Post Repair Inspection,” in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, is required by both the NPRM and the Federal Aviation Regulations.

We agree to provide clarification, but we do not agree to revise this final rule. Paragraph (h) of the final rule indicates that after the corrective actions are accomplished on a cracked stringer splice, the repetitive inspections are terminated for that stringer splice only. The sentence that includes the phrase “repeat the applicable inspections” is not intended to imply any requirement to accomplish the post repair inspections specified in Table 11, “Stringer Splice Post Repair Inspection,” in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012. Paragraph (i) of this final rule also indicates that accomplishing Table 11, “Stringer Splice Post Repair Inspection,” in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, is not required. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Southwest Airlines requested that paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 38608, June 27, 2013) be revised to reference certain service information for corrective action instructions instead of requiring corrective actions that involve contacting the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) for instructions. Southwest Airlines proposed that paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM be changed to instead require replacement of cracked butt splice straps using a Boeing production drawing and require inspections for cracking in the fuselage skin using certain portions and revisions of Boeing Service Bulletins 737-53A1210 or 737-53A1234. Southwest Airlines also suggested referencing Repair 31 of section 53-00-01-2R in the Boeing 737-300/-500 Structural Repair Manual as an acceptable means of compliance for repairing any cracking or damage found on the fuselage skins.

We do not agree. The specific skin inspection requirements after finding a cracked butt joint splice strap might not be covered by the inspections provided in Boeing Service Bulletins 737-53A1210 or 737-53A1234. The specific skin inspection requirements will be developed based on the specific butt strap cracking that is found, and specific repairs will be developed based on the skin cracking that is found. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Southwest Airlines requested that the NPRM (78 FR 38608, June 27, 2013) be revised to exclude General Information Note 12 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, from the required actions of the final rule. Southwest Airlines stated that General Information Note 12 specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions if corrosion is found. Southwest Airlines pointed out that the NPRM does not propose any inspections for corrosion and suggested that any findings of corrosion during the accomplishment of the requirements of this final rule be addressed using the operator's maintenance program.

We agree to revise this final rule. Cracking, not corrosion, is the primary safety concern addressed by this final rule. If any corrosion is found during any inspection for cracking that is required by this final rule, the corrective action for the corrosion should be provided by the operator's maintenance program. We have added paragraph (j)(3) to this final rule to remove the requirement to comply with General Information Note 12 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012.

Southwest Airlines requested that paragraph (j) of the NPRM (78 FR 38608, June 27, 2013) be revised to provide an exclusion of General Information Note 16 from the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012. Southwest Airlines describes General Information Note 16 as specifying to contact Boeing if the fastener patterns, types, and sizes, or the structure does not agree with the production drawing requirements or applicable modification drawing requirements. Southwest Airlines stated that since there are previous FAA-approved repairs and deviations to modification drawings, and the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012, specify actions to remove and install structure and fasteners, Southwest Airlines expected to encounter numerous conditions that would prevent complying with the actions detailed in the figures of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012.

We do not agree to exclude General Information Note 16 from the requirements of this final rule to accomplish actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1322, dated November 5, 2012. The previously approved repairs or deviations to modification drawings may require changes to the inspection methods used and structure that may require removal to accomplish the inspection required by this final rule. Any change from the procedures specified in the service information must be approved as an AMOC under paragraph (k) of the final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

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:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 38608, June 27, 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 38608, June 27, 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 612 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 will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

The work-hour estimate and parts cost information are not available for estimating the cost of a butt strap replacement.

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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bae Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58960). The NPRM was prompted by reports of excess solder deposited during overhaul on the frangible plug of a fire extinguisher, which prevented the release of the extinguishant. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of certain engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguishers to determine if the fire extinguishers are affected by excessive solder and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent the failure of a fire extinguisher to discharge, which reduces the ability of the fire protection system to extinguish fires in the engine or APU fire zones, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the passengers.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0126R1, dated September 10, 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:

Required actions include installing a new unit or overhauling the unit if any solder is found during the inspection.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0793-0002 .

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 58960, September 25, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58960, September 25, 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 58960, September 25, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour 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 $85, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0793; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-03-13, Amendment 39-16597 (76 FR 6539, February 7, 2011). AD 2011-03-13 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2012 (77 FR 58787). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of the RTL return spring. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the rudder travel limiter (RTL) return springs and primary actuator, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require replacing certain RTL return springs, including doing related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RTL, which would permit an increase of rudder authority beyond normal structural limits and consequently affect the controllability of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-18R1, dated March 19, 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.

Mesa Air Lines Inc. (Mesa) requested that we correct a step sequence in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012. Mesa stated that step (6) of the job set-up section, in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012, specifies installing the rig pin. Mesa stated that it is not until step (10) that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012, specifies removing panels 325DL and 325EL, and that removing these panels is necessary to install the rig pin.

We agree with the commenter's request regarding the incorrect step sequence. The manufacturer has issued Revision B to Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, dated September 26, 2013, which corrects the step sequence. We have revised paragraph (j) of this final rule to reference Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision B, dated September 26, 2013; and added Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27- 059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012, to paragraph (k)(2) in this final rule to provide credit for the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD.

Mesa observed that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012, does not mention, reference, or address part number (P/N) BA670-93470-5 (rudder travel limiter). Mesa asked whether Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision A, dated March 8, 2012, or the proposed AD (77 FR 58787, September 24, 2012) applies to its airplanes, since the service information does not reference P/N BA670-93470-5.

We agree that clarification is necessary. Only paragraph (j) of this final rule refers to Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-059, Revision B, dated September 26, 2013. Paragraph (j) of this final rule affects airplanes having parts identified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this final rule, and P/N BA670-93470-5 is not identified. Therefore, operators are not required to do the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this final rule on airplanes having P/N BA670-93470-5.

However, airplanes having P/N BA670-93470-5 are still affected by this final rule. This AD applies to airplanes having serial numbers identified in paragraph (c) of this final rule; paragraph (c) of this final rule does not exclude airplanes having specific parts. All operators of the airplanes identified in applicability of this final rule must show compliance with the provisions of this final rule, including a determination that specific paragraphs do not apply. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

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 (77 FR 58787, September 24, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 58787, September 24, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 366 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with 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-2012-0997-0003; 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:

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

We are adopting a new AD for Eurocopter Model EC225LP and AS332L1 helicopters. The AD requires, before the next overwater flight, inspecting the strap installation on the hinged rods of the emergency flotation gear for both rear cradles for correct installation. If at least one strap is incorrectly installed, the AD requires reinstalling the strap over the hinged rod median plate rather than under it. The AD is prompted by incorrect routing of the straps on Model EC225LP. Investigation indicates that the maintenance work cards and tasks for Model EC225LP and AS332L1 helicopters are not specific enough to describe the removal or installation of the emergency flotation gear rear cradle assembly, which can lead to incorrect routing of the straps. The maintenance work cards and tasks for other Eurocopter helicopters are more precise about the removal or installation for the rear cradle.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013-0237-E, dated September 26, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC225LP helicopters equipped with emergency flotation gear and Model AS332L1 helicopters equipped with emergency flotation gear with Eurocopter Modification (MOD) OP26277. EASA advises of incorrect routing of the straps on the hinged rods of left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side rear cradles of the emergency flotation gear installation on several recently delivered Model EC225 helicopters. According to EASA, the straps were routed over the median plate of the hinged rod instead of under it. EASA further advises that some Model AS332L1 helicopters (those incorporating MOD OP26277) are equipped with an emergency flotation gear of similar design. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the hinged rods and straps upon deployment of the emergency flotation gear during ditching and consequent unsafe positioning of the rear floats, possibly resulting in a helicopter capsizing. Therefore, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of the hinged rods of the emergency flotation gear LH and RH rear cradles and accomplishing applicable corrective actions.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Eurocopter issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 0, dated September 25, 2013, with four different numbers: No. 25.02.76 relates to the FAA type-certificated Model AS332L1 helicopter and to the military Model AS332M1 helicopter. No. 25.01.62 relates to military Model AS532AL and UL helicopters. No. 25A142 relates to the FAA type-certificated Model EC225LP helicopter. No. 25A060 relates to the military Model EC725AP helicopter. The EASB specifies checking the routing of the straps on the hinged rods of the emergency flotation gear LH and RH rear cradles and making the installation compliant if necessary.

The AD requires before the next overwater flight:

• Inspecting the strap installation on the hinged rods of the emergency flotation gear on both rear cradles for correct installation.

• If any strap is routed under the hinged rod's median plate, reinstalling the strap so that the strap is routed over the median plate.

We estimate that this AD will affect 14 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour. We estimate 0.25 work-hour to inspect each helicopter for correct installation of the strap for a total of $21 per helicopter and $294 for the fleet. We estimate 0.5 work-hour to correct any improper installation of the straps for a total of $43 per helicopter.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. The required corrective actions must be done prior to the next overwater flight, which are prohibited until the inspection of the strap for incorrect routing on the hinged rods of the rear cradles of the emergency flotation gear installation is done. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment period prior to adopting this rule because some of these helicopters are used exclusively for offshore operations.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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, 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63907). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2013-0888;fp=true;ns=true.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 63907, October 25, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 63907, October 25, 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 63907, October 25, 2013).

We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour 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 the AD on U.S. operators to be $297.50, or $42.50 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $1,800, for a cost on U.S. operators of $16,170, or $2,310 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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 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 this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

NASA has determined that this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes to remove sections from the Code of Federal Regulations that are obsolete and no longer used. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed EO 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. NASA developed its plan and published it on the Agency's open Government Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/open/ . The Agency conducted an analysis of its existing regulations to comply with the Order and determined that subpart 1214.5 of part 1214, entitled “Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program” is obsolete and no longer used.

Subpart 1214.5 of part 1214, Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program, was promulgated December 28, 1990 [55 FR 53289] to ensure that employees assigned to mission-critical positions meet established screening requirements which was in response to the Carter Administration's determination that the Space Shuttle was a critical national resource and that employees assigned to critical positions that affected the safety of space flight meet the highest standards of integrity and reliability.

In accordance with Title 51—National and Commercial Space Programs, Subtitle II, Chapter 201, Subchapter III—Sec. 20132—Security Requirements, the Administrator established security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as deemed necessary in the interest of the national security. The Administrator also arranged with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigations of the Administration's officers, employees, and consultants, and its contractors and subcontractors and their officers and employees, actual or prospective, as the Administrator deems appropriate. NASA implemented Homeland Security Policy Directive (HSPD)-12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, issued August 27, 2004, to meet this requirement.

In addition, as required by 14 CFR 1203a.100 and 1203a.103, to insure the uninterrupted and successful accomplishment of the NASA mission, certain designated security areas have been established and maintained by NASA Centers and Component Facilities in order to provide appropriate and adequate protection for facilities, property, or classified/proprietary information and material in the possession of NASA or NASA contractors located at NASA Centers and Component Facilities. Only those NASA employees, NASA contractor employees, and visitors who have a need for such access and who meet the criteria may enter these areas.

NASA Center Directors, including Component Facilities and Technical and Service Support Centers, and the Executive Director for Headquarters Operations, NASA Headquarters, may rescind previously granted authorizations to enter a security area when an individual's access is no longer required, threatens the security of the property, or is disruptive of Government operations.

NASA believes that these regulations provide adequate governance over the Agency's activities for screening and conducting background checks on employees assigned to critical positions.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR Part 4, Subpart 4.13—Personal Identity Verification, requires contractors to comply with agency personal identity verification procedures identified in the contract that implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance M-05-24.

NASA conducted a survey across all of its Centers, as well as formed a working group with representatives from NASA's Offices of Safety and Mission Assurance, Protective Services, Human Capital Management, Procurement, Chief Health and Medical Officer, and General Counsel who determined that the regulation is obsolete and no longer used.

The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This requirement does not apply if the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). This rule removes one section from Title 14 of the CFR and, therefore, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1214 as follows:

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the provisions of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778, that relate to the permanent importation of defense articles and defense services; and the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, relating to commerce in firearms and ammunition. The Attorney General has delegated all of those responsibilities to the Director of ATF (Director), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130.

Regulations that implement the provisions of the AECA that are concerned with the importation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war are set forth in 27 CFR Part 447. The regulation at 27 CFR 447.41(a) generally provides that articles on the U.S. Munitions Import List may not be imported into the United States except pursuant to a permit. Section 447.42(a) states that persons required to obtain a permit must file with ATF an ATF Form 6—Part I (5330.3A), “Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War” (ATF Form 6). The application must be signed and dated and must contain the information requested on the form.

Section 447.43(a) provides that import permits are valid for 1 year from their issuance date unless a different period of validity is stated thereon. Furthermore, under section 447.43(b), if shipment cannot be completed during the period of validity of the permit, another application must be submitted for a permit to cover the unshipped balance.

Regulations that implement the provisions of the NFA are set forth in 27 CFR Part 479, which contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacture, making, exportation, transfer, taxing, identification and registration of, and the dealing in, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms. The regulation at 27 CFR 479.111(a) provides that no firearm may be imported or brought into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction unless the person importing or bringing in the firearm establishes to the satisfaction of the Director that the firearm to be imported or brought in is being imported or brought in for certain specified purposes, e.g., scientific or research purposes. This paragraph further provides that any person desiring to import or bring a firearm into the United States must file with the Director an application on ATF Form 6. For NFA firearms, the approval of an application to import a firearm shall be automatically terminated at the expiration of 1 year from the date of approval unless, upon request, it is further extended by the Director.

Section 479.113 provides that the Director shall permit the conditional importation of any NFA firearm for the purpose of examining and testing to determine whether the importation of such firearm will be authorized. An application under this section shall be filed with the Director on ATF Form 6. The Director may impose conditions upon any importation, and the person importing the firearm must agree to either export or destroy the weapon if a final determination is made that it may not be imported.

Regulations in Subpart G of part 478 provide the procedural and substantive requirements of the GCA relative to the importation of firearms and ammunition. Section 478.112 states that no firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition shall be imported or brought into the United States by a licensed importer unless the Director has authorized the importation of the firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition. This section further provides that the licensed importer must file with the Director an application for a permit, ATF Form 6, to import or bring a firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition into the United States. If the Director approves the application, such approved application will serve as the permit to import the firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition described on the permit, and importation of such firearms, firearm barrels, or ammunition may continue to be made by the licensed importer under the approved application (permit) during the period specified on the permit.

Similar procedures are set forth in section 478.113 with respect to the importation of a firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition into the United States by a licensee other than a licensed importer.

Requirements for the conditional importation of firearms, firearm barrels, and ammunition for the purpose of examination and testing to determine whether the Director will authorize their importation are set forth in section 478.116. This section provides that an application on ATF Form 6 for such conditional importation must be filed with the Director. If approved, the Director may impose conditions on the importation, and the person importing the firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition must agree to either export or destroy the imported item if it is determined that the item may not be imported.

ATF received a petition, dated August 10, 2010, filed on behalf of the FireArms Import-Export Roundtable (FAIR) Trade Group. As stated in the petition, FAIR is an organization that represents importers and exporters of firearms, ammunition, firearms parts, and accessories. The petitioner requested an amendment of the regulations to change the ATF Form 6 period of validity from 1 year to 2 years. According to the petitioner, this amendment would be beneficial to both the industry and to ATF, without having any impact on public safety or compliance with the law. As stated in the petition:

Increasing the term of an import permit to 2 years would also result in an economic benefit for ATF. Of the approximately 11,000 ATF Form 6 import applications ATF processes each year, 9,000 are submitted by an ATF licensed or registered importer. Subsequent information provided by the petitioner estimates that the renewal rate on import permits for industry members is approximately 50 percent. If the term of an import permit is changed from 1 year to 2 years, ATF estimates the number of import permit applications submitted by licensed or registered importers would be reduced to 4,500 each year. ATF employs data entry contractors who spend an average of 2 hours completing quality review and data entry functions for each import application. The average salary of a contractor is $14 per hour. ATF examiners typically spend 4 hours processing an ATF Form 6 application. The average hourly rate for an examiner is $24.74. If the number of applications was reduced to 4,500 each year, the annual savings to ATF would be approximately $571,320.

The Department determined that an amendment of the regulations to extend the term of import permits for firearms, ammunition, and defense articles from 1 year to 2 years is warranted. Accordingly, in order to reduce the paperwork burden on the industry and to increase the efficiency of ATF in processing requests for importation, the Department proposed to amend the regulations in parts 447 and 479 to increase the term of import permits from 1 year to 2 years (Notice No. ATF 43P, Feb. 6, 2012, 77 FR 5735).

Because the regulations in part 478 do not specify the period of validity for import permits as 1 year, the Department did not propose to amend the regulations in part 478. The regulations in part 478 provide that importation may continue to be made by the applicant during the period specified on the approved application (permit). As stated on the ATF Form 6, the permit is valid for 12 months from the Director's approval date on the permit. If the proposed regulations were adopted, the ATF Form 6 would be revised to reflect the amended period of validity for importation as 2 years from the Director's approval date on the permit.

The term of validity for import permits filed by members of the United States military returning to the United States from abroad with firearms, and for nonimmigrant aliens temporarily importing firearms into the United States for lawful hunting and sporting purposes was not affected by the proposed rule and would remain at 1 year. The comment period for Notice No. ATF 43P closed on May 7, 2012.

In response to Notice No. ATF 43P, ATF received four comments. Two commenters supported the proposed rule and two commenters indicated opposition to the proposed rule.

One of the commenters, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. (NSSF), indicated support for the proposed rule and stated that “[t]his change would significantly benefit both ATF and U.S. importers without reducing ATF's ability to administer the 27 CFR part 447 regulations and to ensure that importers are in compliance with the law.” As stated in its comment, NSSF is a trade association for America's firearms, ammunition, hunting, and shooting sports industry.

Another commenter expressed support for the proposed rule but raised two concerns that he believed needed to be addressed. The commenter's first concern involves the source of some of the information presented in the proposed rule:

The commenter's second concern involves safety, i.e., the proposed rule “offers no information as to what ramifications this change will have in regard to safety and national security.” According to the commenter, while there are a number of conditions in the proposed rule that could lead one to conclude that safety and security are not an issue, e.g., there are no proposed changes to the information required on ATF Form 6, “without any statement from ATF, one is left to draw his or her own conclusions.”

In the proposed rule, the Department stated that information provided by the petitioner indicates the renewal rate on import permits for industry members is approximately 50 percent. One commenter expressed concern regarding the source of this information, i.e., the petitioner, and suggested that ATF conduct its own research regarding the renewal rate on import permits. As stated in the proposed rule, ATF processes approximately 11,000 ATF Form 6 applications annually. Each permit is entered into ATF's database system as a “new” application. “Renewals” are not entered into the system as such. Accordingly, available data does not permit ATF to conduct the kind of independent research suggested by this commenter. Nevertheless, ATF's experience in processing thousands of ATF Form 6 applications every year supports the conclusion that the petitioner's estimate of a 50 percent annual renewal rate is not unreasonable. Moreover, even if that estimate is high it does not undercut the value of this rule. A renewal rate of even half of the estimate (i.e., 25 percent) would still produce substantial savings to both the industry and ATF.

Regarding the commenter's second concern, ATF does not believe that extending the term of import permits from 1 year to 2 years will compromise safety and national security. Most annual ATF Form 6 applications (roughly 9,000 of the approximately 11,000 applications) are filed by federally licensed or registered importers. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security verifies the license/registration and permit are still valid at the time of importation. In addition, Federal firearms licensees are subject to periodic inspections by ATF industry operations investigators who will have access to the firearms in inventory and any associated paperwork concerning acquisition and disposition of these firearms. The majority of these permit applications are for sporting firearms being imported into the United States. These firearms do not require any supporting documentation for import nor are they subject to any additional regulations beyond the license, permit, and AECA registration requirements. Imports of National Firearms Act weapons represent a minority of the import applications filed. NFA weapons are generally not importable except under very limited circumstances (i.e. for the government) and those restrictions would still be applicable. Therefore, the concerns for public safety and national security when extending the term of import permits from 1 to 2 years is minimal.

The remaining 2,000 applications represent imports of defense articles that are not firearms or ammunition (e.g., gas masks, engines for military vehicles, aircraft fuselages). The majority of these articles are not subject to further regulation once in the United States nor are they subject to requirements beyond the ATF Form 6 at the time of importation. For example, in order to import a gas mask for resale, an importer need only file the ATF Form 6 and be registered under the AECA. There is no limit on the amount they may import and they are not usually restricted by State or local governments. However, ATF may deny, suspend, or revoke any import permit due to violations of law. For the reasons discussed above, ATF believes that safety and security will not be compromised by extending the validity period of a permit every 2 years instead of each year. ATF also retains the authority to revoke any approved permit pursuant to any changes in the law, interpretation of the law, or changes to the regulations.

One of the commenters questioned the Department's authority to issue regulations without specific congressional authorization. The second commenter indicated opposition to extending the term of import permits from 1 year to 2 years:

Regarding ATF's authority to issue regulations, the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the provisions of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778, that relate to the permanent importation of defense articles and defense services; the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, relating to commerce in firearms and ammunition. The Attorney General has delegated responsibility for the enforcement of these statutes to the Director of ATF, subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130. This rule is being promulgated by the Attorney General, pursuant to authority vested in him under those statutes.

The second commenter objected to extending the term of import permits to 2 years, arguing that the nature of the articles being imported warrants strict limits on importation. While the Department acknowledges the commenter's concern, it does not believe that extending the term of import permits from 1 year to 2 years will have a negative effect on public safety or national security. As stated in the response above, most annual ATF Form 6 applications are filed by federally licensed or registered importers. Furthermore, all importers are subject to periodic compliance inspection by ATF. The majority of all permit applications are for sporting firearms being imported into the United States, which do not require any supporting documentation for import. Therefore, ATF believes that a 2-year permit lifespan will not undermine its ability to ensure compliance with the law and regulations, and that public safety and national security will not be compromised by allowing ATF to review this supporting documentation every 2 years instead of each year.

Rather than extending the term of an import permit to 2 years, the same commenter stated that ATF should make the current import process less burdensome. ATF continually evaluates its regulatory processes to determine, inter alia, whether they can be streamlined or simplified without undermining ATF's regulatory responsibilities. ATF believes that extending the term of an import permit to 2 years meets those criteria, and it will continue to explore additional opportunities to simplify the import permit process.

This final rule adopts without substantive change the proposed amendments that extend the term of import permits for firearms, ammunition, and defense articles from 1 year to 2 years.

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1, General Principles of Regulation, and section 6, Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f).

Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 section 6, Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules, directs agencies to develop a plan to review existing significant rules that may be “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” and to make appropriate changes where warranted. The Department selected and reviewed this rule under the criteria set forth in its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules. During this review, ATF calculated that it processes approximately 11,000 import applications each year. Approximately 82 percent of those applications (9,000) are submitted by federally licensed or registered importers. ATF estimates that it takes a compliance officer employed by a federally licensed or registered importer approximately 30 minutes to complete an ATF Form 6 permit application. According to the Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2011), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, the average hourly wage of a compliance officer is $30.66. If the term of an import permit was extended to 2 years, ATF estimates that the number of ATF Form 6 permit applications submitted by licensed or registered importers will decrease, perhaps as much as by half. Reducing the number of permits submitted by the industry by half (4,500) would result in an annual savings of approximately $68,985.

Increasing the term of an import permit to 2 years would also result in an economic benefit for ATF. ATF employs data entry contractors who spend an average of 2 hours completing quality review and data entry functions for each import application. The average salary of a contractor is $14 per hour. ATF examiners typically spend 4 hours processing an ATF Form 6 application. The average hourly rate for an examiner is $24.74. If the number of applications submitted by the industry was reduced to 4,500 each year, the annual savings to ATF would be approximately $571,320.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this regulation will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Attorney General has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Department believes that this rule will have a positive economic impact on both the industry and ATF. The number of permits and the time required for industry to file those permits and for ATF to process them will be significantly reduced.

An industry compliance officer spends approximately 30 minutes completing an ATF Form 6. According to the Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2011), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, the average hourly wage of a compliance officer is $30.66. Reducing the number of permits submitted by the industry by half (4,500) would result in an annual savings of approximately $68,985.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ATF Form 6 has been revised under currently approved OMB control number 1140-0005 to reflect the 2 year (24 months) amended period of validity for import permits.

Copies of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received in response to the NPRM, and this final rule will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-062, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 648-8740.

The author of this document is Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts 447 and 479 are amended as follows:

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Hwy 160 drawbridge, mile 0.1, over Three Mile Slough at Rio Vista, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 12 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw opens on signal. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., February 3, 2014 to April 5, 2014, to allow Caltrans to replace the steel deck of the lift span. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. during this deviation. The confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers can be used as an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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.

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-2013-0235 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 April 8, 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-2013-0235, 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.html.

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 June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33785) (FRL-9386-2), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F8158) by DuPont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.628 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo- N -[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H -pyrozole-5-carboxamide, in or on peanuts at 0.06 parts per million (ppm) and peanut, hay at 90 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by DuPont Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Additionally, in the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL-9392-9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E8170) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.628 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum at 4.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.04 ppm; papaya at 4.0 ppm; passionfruit at 4.0 ppm; and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 3.0 ppm. The petition also requested that tolerances for spice, subgroup 19B be increased to 40 ppm; and papaya and passionfruit be increased to 4.0 ppm. IR-4 is seeking to raise the tolerance on spice, subgroup 19B based on additional residue data on dill seed; IR-4 is seeking to raise the tolerances on papaya and passionfruit as a result of the request to shorten the existing pre-harvest intervals (PHIs) for the accompanying use directions for these commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by DuPont Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

EPA was petitioned for a tolerance in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum at 4.0 ppm; however, the proposed tolerance was incorrectly transcribed in the Federal Register Notice of the filing of the petition to propose a tolerance in or on fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum. However, the summary available in the docket lists stone fruit group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum. EPA assessed the correct proposed tolerance on crop group 12-12 rather than crop group 12, for which there is already an established tolerance.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the proposed tolerances for several commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C. Additionally, IR-4 later withdrew the request to establish a tolerance for tree nut group 14-12.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 chlorantraniliprole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with chlorantraniliprole 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.

Chlorantraniliprole does not exhibit immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, or developmental toxicity. Additionally, no mutagenicity concerns were reported in the genotoxicity studies.

In oral and dermal toxicity studies in rats, minimally increased microvesiculation of adrenal cortex was observed mostly in males; however, supporting data demonstrated no effect on the capacity of the adrenal gland to produce corticosterone following stimulation. Therefore, adrenal cortex effects observed in rat studies were not considered adverse.

Chlorantraniliprole does not exhibit prenatal or postnatal toxicity as there were no maternal or fetal effects in studies conducted in rats and rabbits. The relative absence of mammalian hazard may be due in part to chlorantranilprole's selectivity for insect ryanodine receptor (RyR) over mammalian counterparts. In short-term mammalian studies, the most consistent effects are increased liver weights and mild induction of liver enzymes.

Chlorantraniliprole is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, based on the weight of evidence of the data. No treatment-related tumors were reported in the submitted chronic and oncogenicity studies in rats and mice (18-month carcinogenicity study) or in the subchronic studies in mice, dogs, and rats.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by chlorantraniliprole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Chlorantraniliprole: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Green Onion Subgroup 3-07b, and Peanut; for the Requests to Update the Crop Groups of Stone Fruit, Tree Nut, and Spices; to Shorten the Pre-Harvest Intervals for Papaya, Passionfruit, and Mayhaw; and Evaluation of Condition of Registration Data on Rice, Coffee, Strawberry, and Tropical Fruits” at pp. 25-30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern (LOC) 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.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for chlorantraniliprole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of July 27, 2011 (76 FR 44815) (FRL-8875-5).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to chlorantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing chlorantraniliprole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.628. EPA assessed dietary exposures from chlorantraniliprole in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for chlorantraniliprole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for the proposed and registered crops, and assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities. Where processing data indicated a reduction (or no increase) in residue upon processing, the residue level of the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) was used without reduction for the processed commodity, for example mint oil from spearmint. Where processing data indicated an increase in residue in the processed commodity, tolerance-level residues based on tolerances established for those processed commodities were used, e.g., raisins from grapes. However, if residues do not concentrate or where processing data indicated a reduction in residues upon processing, the tolerance for the RAC is used without reduction and a separate tolerance for the processed commodity is not needed. Where adequate processing data do not exist, Dietary Risk Evaluation System (DEEM) default concentration factors were used.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that chlorantraniliprole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for chlorantraniliprole. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for chlorantraniliprole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of chlorantraniliprole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and PRZM Groundwater (GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of chlorantraniliprole for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 39.87 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 207 ppb for groundwater.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. No acute dietary risk assessment was performed because no acute hazard was identified. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 207 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Chlorantraniliprole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Sod farms/turf, landscape ornamentals and interiorscapes, and as a termiticide. Residential exposure is expected to occur for short-term and intermediate-term durations; however, due to the lack of toxicity identified for short- and intermediate-term durations via relevant routes of exposure, residential exposure was not assessed. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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 chlorantraniliprole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and chlorantraniliprole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that chlorantraniliprole 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 Food Quality Protection Act (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. There were no effects on prenatal fetal growth or postnatal development up to the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) in rats or rabbits in the developmental or 2-generation reproduction studies. Moreover, there were no treatment related effects on the numbers of litters, fetuses (live or dead), resorptions, sex ratio, or post-implantation losses. There were no effects on fetal body weights, skeletal ossification, and external, visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for chlorantraniliprole is complete.

ii. There is no indication that chlorantraniliprole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factor (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that chlorantraniliprole results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary assessment utilized tolerance-level residues for all crops and assumed that 100 PCT of the proposed and registered crops were treated with chlorantraniliprole. Default processing factors were used, as appropriate. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to chlorantraniliprole in drinking water. Moreover, there is a lack of toxicity via the dermal route, as well as a lack of toxicity over the acute-, short- and intermediate-term via the oral route of exposure. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by chlorantraniliprole.

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, chlorantraniliprole 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 chlorantraniliprole from food and water will utilize 6.7% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of chlorantraniliprole is not expected.

3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no short-term or intermediate-term adverse effects were identified, the aggregate short-term or intermediate-term risk is the same as the dietary risk, which will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, chlorantraniliprole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

5. 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 chlorantraniliprole residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology, liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); Method DuPont-11374, is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

Codex has not established chlorantraniliprole MRLs for passionfruit, papaya, peanuts, green onions, or spice commodities. EPA cannot harmonize the requested tolerance for stone fruit group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum with the Codex MRL for stone fruit, because the permitted domestic use on these crops in accordance with the approved pesticide label results in residue levels higher than the Codex MRL; EPA will not set tolerances at levels that could result in legally treated food in the United States bearing residues in excess of the approved tolerance.

Based on the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the following proposed tolerance level: Spice subgroup 19B from 40 ppm to 90. The Agency revised this tolerance level based on analysis of the residue field trial data using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance calculation procedures.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo- N -[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H -pyrozole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum at 4.0 ppm; onion, green subgroup 3-07B at 3.0 ppm; peanut, hay at 90 ppm; and peanut at 0.06 ppm. This regulation additionally revises previously established tolerances in or on the following commodities: Papaya from 2.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; passionfruit from 2.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and spice subgroup 19B from 14 ppm to 90 ppm. Finally, this regulation removes established permanent tolerances or time-limited tolerances for the indirect or inadvertent residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum at 4.0 ppm; leek at 0.20 ppm; onion, green at 0.20 ppm; onion, welsh at 0.20 ppm; peanut, hay at 0.20 ppm; and shallots, fresh leaves at 0.20 ppm.

Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum is being removed because the group 12-12 tolerance being established, includes all commodities in group 12 at the same tolerance level. Leek; onion, green; onion, welsh; and shallots, fresh leaves are being removed because each of these commodities are included in the subgroup 3-07B, which is being established at 3.0 ppm, a level higher than the time-limited tolerances for the inadvertent residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on these commodities.

This final rule establishes tolerances 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 tolerances 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:

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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl .

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-2011-0736 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 April 8, 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-2011-0736 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 October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61647) (FRL-8890-5), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7903) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28-4) when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder or filler) in pesticide formulations applied preharvest to growing crops. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 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 D-mannose including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with D-mannose 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. EPA's conclusions about the toxicity and effects of D-mannose are presented in this unit.

D-mannose is a naturally occurring simple sugar (molecular formula C 6 H 12 O 6 ) and is a normal constituent of the human diet. It is found as the free sugar in peaches, apples, and oranges. D-mannose occurs in the tissues of the heart, spleen, lung, kidney, brain, muscle, liver, and intestine of humans and other mammalian species as well as being present in circulating blood of humans at concentrations of around 1 mg/dl.

Moreover, D-mannose is an important component of various human metabolic processes. When present in the human body, D-mannose is involved in an extensive series of metabolic transformations being ultimately incorporated into glycoproteins and glycolipids or formed into the sugar fucose which is then incorporated in glycoproteins. The resultant glycoproteins and glycolipids are essential to the maintenance of cellular integrity and to cell generation.

D-mannose is a six carbon simple sugar (hexose) that is an epimer of D-glucose, having the same chemical structure but differing only in the three dimensional orientation of one hydroxyl group. All hexoses, including D-glucose and D-mannose, play significant roles in human metabolism, including cellular respiration and energy production. Based on the essentiality of these substances and the efficient modes of metabolism, there are no concerns for toxicity at normal dietary levels.

D-mannose is a naturally occurring simple sugar and is a normal constituent of the human body. No toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to D-mannose, EPA considered likely exposure from the use of D-mannose as an inert ingredient in pesticides applied to growing crops. Since no toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified and since the metabolic processes involving D-mannose are well understood, the Agency has determined that a quantitative dietary exposure assessment is not necessary. While dietary exposure may result from the use of D-mannose as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, the amount of D-mannose contained in pesticide formulations and applied to growing crops would be at levels far below its natural occurance in foods and endogenous production in the human body.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Dietary exposure from drinking water to D-mannose can occur by drinking water that has been contaminated by run-off from a pesticide treated area. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment from drinking water for D-mannose was not conducted.

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). There are no pesticide products containing D-mannose registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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 D-mannose to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and D-mannose does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that D-mannose 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.

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.

Because of the non-toxic nature of D-mannose, there are no threshold effects, which would trigger the application of section 408(b)(2)(C).

Taking into consideration all available information on D-mannose, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to D-mannose under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of D-mannose when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder, or filler) in pesticide formulations applied preharvest to growing crops is safe under FFDCA section 408.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical level limiting the amount of residues that cannot be exceeded.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for D-mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28-4) when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder, or filler) in pesticide formulations applied preharvest to growing crops.

This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of 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 exemption 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:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management 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 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 4,518 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) and inseason adjustment (79 FR 758, January 7, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 31, 2014.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.