The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis ), an insect native to China, Japan, Korea, and the Isle of Hainan, is a destructive pest of hardwood trees. The ALB regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of ALB to noninfested areas of the United States.

The regulations in § 301.51-3(a) provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State in which ALB has been found by an inspector, where the Administrator has reason to believe that ALB is present, or where the Administrator considers regulation necessary because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where ALB has been found.

Less than an entire State will be quarantined only if (1) the Administrator determines that the State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles and (2) the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial spread of ALB.

In 2004, APHIS quarantined portions of Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ, after ALB was first detected in the area in order to prevent the artificial spread of ALB. After the completion of control and regulatory activities, and based on the results of at least 3 years of negative surveys of all regulated host plants within the quarantined areas, APHIS has determined that Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ, have met the criteria for removal of the Federal quarantine for ALB.

Therefore, in this interim rule, we are amending the list of quarantined areas in § 301.51-3(c) by removing the entry for Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ. This action relieves restrictions on the movement of regulated articles from those areas that are no longer warranted. With this change, there are no longer any areas in New Jersey that are quarantined because of ALB.

Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions on certain areas that are no longer warranted. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the ALB regulations by removing portions of Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ, from the list of quarantined areas and removing restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas. We have determined that the ALB is no longer present in that area and that the quarantine and restrictions are no longer necessary.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities, i.e., small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. The entities most likely to be affected by this rule include landscaping, tree servicing, waste hauling, firewood sales, trucking, construction, excavation, and property management in the area being removed from quarantine.

In the portions of Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ, that we are deregulating in this interim rule, there are estimated to be several hundred entities that will be affected. These entities are mainly landscape companies; municipalities would also be affected. While the size of these entities is unknown, it is reasonable to assume that most are small entities based on Small Business Administration size standards.

Any affected entities located within the area removed from quarantine stand to benefit from the interim rule, since they are no longer subject to the restrictions in the regulations. However, our experience with the ALB program in Illinois, New York, and New Jersey has shown that the number and value of regulated articles that are, upon inspection, determined to be infested, and therefore denied a certificate or a limited permit for movement, is small. Thus, any benefit for affected entities in the areas removed from quarantine is likely to be minimal, given that the costs associated with the restrictions that have been relieved were themselves minimal.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows:

The 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) authorizes the continuation of certain CCC and FSA programs, including, but not limited to, MAL, LDP, NAP, Sugar Program loans, MILC, and DIPP.

As specified in this document, CCC will implement administration of 2014 crop MAL, LDPs, and sugar loans as specified in the current regulations, subject to changes made by the 2014 Farm Bill. Applicable 2014 crop loan rates, schedules of premiums and discounts, and other related rates will be announced later.

The 2014 Farm Bill requires producers to submit annual acreage reports of all cropland on a farm to qualify for all programs in Title I, subtitles A and B, which includes MAL, LDP, and the new Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, Price Loss Coverage Program, and the Transition Assistance Program for Producers of Upland Cotton. Regulations will be published at a later date for these three new programs as required by the 2014 Farm Bill.

NAP service fees will remain unchanged, although more producers will be eligible for fee waivers and more crops will be eligible with the 2014 Farm Bill changes as specified in the NAP section below.

MILC will continue through the earlier of September 1, 2014, or the date when the new Dairy Margin Protection program specified in section 1403 of the 2014 Farm Bill is implemented. There are minor changes to MILC for the remaining months of FY 2014, as specified in this document.

The 2014 Farm Bill contains no changes to DIPP, which will continue through September 30, 2018.

FSA must update regulations, software, forms, and handbooks to implement the 2014 Farm Bill. FSA is updating program Fact Sheets and will conduct extensive outreach to ensure that producers are aware of sign-up periods and application requirements. Details for the implementation of each program will be announced in separate press releases. The reauthorized programs will be implemented as soon as possible, so that producers can plan for the 2014 growing and harvest seasons.

The 2014 Farm Bill extended the MAL and LDP Programs for all previously authorized commodities for the 2014 through 2018 crops. These programs will continue as specified in the regulations in 7 CFR parts 1421, 1425, 1427, and 1434, with the mandatory changes from the 2014 Farm Bill as described below.

The MAL Program provides short-term financing, which allows farmers to pay their bills soon after harvest and sell their crop at a time that is convenient for them, facilitating orderly marketing throughout the rest of the year. MAL repayment provisions specify, under certain circumstances, that producers may repay at less than the loan rate plus accrued interest and other charges. When the allowed repayment is less than the loan rate, the difference is referred to as marketing loan gain.

LDPs are direct payments to producers on harvested commodities that provide income support when the market price falls below loan rates as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. Current regulations for MAL and LDP apply through the 2013 crop year.

With the pending harvest of 2014 crop loan commodities, this document announces that CCC will implement MAL and LDP provisions for 2014 crop wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, soybeans, rice, peanuts, cotton, sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, graded and non-graded wool, mohair, honey, dry peas, lentils, large chickpeas, and small chickpeas based on current commodity loan regulations in:

• 7 CFR Part 1421, “Grains and Similarly Handled Commodities—Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments for 2008 through 2012;”

• 7 CFR Part 1425, “Cooperative Marketing Associations;”

• 7 CFR Part 1427, “Cotton;” and

• 7 CFR Part 1434, “Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan and LDP Regulations for Honey.”

The loan rate for base quality upland cotton is the simple average of the adjusted prevailing world price for the 2 immediately preceding marketing years, but not more than 52 cents per pound or less than 45 cents per pound. The 2014 loan rate, announced February 18, 2014, at 52 cents per pound, is below the 72-cent simple average of the world price for the 2 immediately preceding marketing years. Therefore, the 2014 Farm Bill change, which is designed to make the loan rate more reflective of prevailing market prices, serves to limit the impact of elevated market prices on the loan rate, while allowing any price declines below 52 cents to be reflected in lower future loan rates.

The applicable regulations will be amended at a later date through rulemaking to reflect the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill. In addition, CCC will announce by press release and other means the applicable 2014 crop loan rates established by the 2014 Farm Bill, the schedule of premiums and discounts, and other related information.

NAP provides limited “catastrophic” level coverage for crops for which crop insurance is not available through the Risk Management Agency (RMA), USDA. Qualifying losses for NAP must be due to drought, flood, or other natural disaster, as determined by the Secretary. The 2014 Farm Bill continues the provisions for NAP coverage at the catastrophic level. In addition, NAP has been expanded to include buy-up protection, similar to buy-up provisions offered under the federal crop insurance program. Service fees are currently waived for limited resource farmers. Beginning with the 2014 crops, the 2014 Farm Bill extends the service fee waiver to beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers. We will refund the administrative service fee for beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers who have already paid the fee for 2014 coverage prior to enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill. Eligible NAP crops currently include commercial crops: Crops expressly grown for food (excluding livestock and their by-products); crops planted and grown for livestock consumption; crops grown for fiber (excluding trees grown for wood, paper, or pulp products); aquaculture species crops (including ornamental fish); floriculture; ornamental nursery; Christmas tree crops; turf grass sod; industrial crops; seed crops; and sea grass and sea oats. Beginning with 2015 crops, the 2014 Farm Bill adds sweet sorghum, biomass sorghum, and industrial crops (including those grown expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for renewable biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased products) as eligible crops. The NAP regulation, 7 CFR part 1437, will be amended at a later date through rulemaking to reflect the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill.

The Sugar Program provides loans to eligible sugar processors, using domestically grown sugar beets and sugarcane that is in the refined, raw, or in-processed state as collateral for the loan. These loans can be repaid at principal plus interest during the loan term or the sugar can be forfeited to CCC, at loan maturity, in satisfaction of loan debt. Processors may begin applying for 2014 crop sugar loans on October 1, 2014. Sugar loans will continue under the current regulations found in 7 CFR Part 1435, Sugar Program.

The Sugar Program regulation, 7 CFR part 1435, will be amended at a later date through rulemaking to reflect the extension of the program through the 2018 crop, as authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill changes only the authorized dates for the Sugar Program; it does not change any other provisions of the Sugar Program.

CCC will also announce by press release and other means the 2014 crop sugar loan rates, the schedule of premiums and discounts, and other related information.

The 2014 Farm Bill extends MILC with minor modifications through the earlier of September 1, 2014, or the date on which the new Dairy Margin Protection Program is implemented. The new Dairy Margin Protection Program will be implemented at a later date through regulations as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. MILC compensates enrolled dairy producers when the Boston Class I milk price falls below $16.94 per hundredweight (cwt), as adjusted for the National Average Dairy Feed Ration Cost specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. All MILC contracts are automatically extended to the earlier of September 1, 2014, or the date on which the Dairy Margin Protection program is implemented. Producers therefore do not need to re-enroll in MILC to receive FY 2014 benefits. The production start month previously selected by an operation is applicable for FY 2014, unless a producer requests a change.

Producers may select any month in FY 2014 prior to the termination date for MILC as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill to begin receiving payments. During the period (referred to as the “relief period”) beginning April 14, 2014, through the close of business on May 30, 2014, producers with existing MILC contracts may select a different production start month for FY 2014 by completing and submitting form CCC-580M “Milk Income Loss Contract Extension (MILC) Modification” to FSA. For producers with new dairy operations that began operation before April 14, 2014, FSA will accept applications (form CCC-580 “Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)”) during the relief period. Regular start month selection provisions specified in 7 CFR 1430.205, “Selection of Starting Month,” will not apply during the relief period. After the relief period ends, beginning June 2, 2014, all production start month changes for new and existing MILC participants must be made according to regular start month selection provisions as specified in 7 CFR 1430.205.

September 2013 was the last eligible month for MILC payments under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246) as extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-240). The payment rate determined for October through December 2013 and January 2014, the first four months of FY 2014, is zero. Payments for subsequent months of FY 2014 will be determined as data becomes available.

The payment rate for MILC is adjusted upward when the National Average Dairy Feed Ration Cost exceeds certain levels. Beginning February 1, 2014, and ending on the termination date for MILC, if the National Average Dairy Feed Ration Cost for a month is greater than $7.35 per hundredweight, the payment rate for that month will be increased by 45 percent of the percentage by which the National Average Dairy Feed Ration Cost exceeds $7.35 per hundredweight.

The 2014 Farm Bill extended DIPP through September 30, 2018 with no changes. Through DIPP, FSA issues payments to dairy producers for losses incurred because they were required to remove their milk production from commercial markets due to the presence of certain chemical or toxic residues.

As a condition of eligibility for all commodity program and marketing loan program benefits specified in Subtitle A and Subtitle B of Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill, producers on farms must annually submit acreage reports of all cropland on the farm. The report of acreage must include the producer or producers' shares and comply with the existing regulations specified in 7 CFR part 718.

The 2014 Farm Bill modifies the payment limit and adjusted gross income (AGI) eligibility provisions, which are currently specified in 7 CFR Part 1400. Beginning with the 2014 crop year, the total amount of payments received, directly and indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except joint ventures or general partnerships) for Price Loss Coverage, Agricultural Risk Coverage, marketing loan gains, and loan deficiency payments (other than for peanuts), is limited to no more than $125,000 annually. A person or legal entity that receives, directly or indirectly, payments for peanuts has a separate $125,000 payment limit for those payments. The NAP payment limit also increases to $125,000 per year. The combined payment limit for three of the four disaster programs (Livestock Indemnity Program, Livestock Forage Disaster Program, and Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish) is also increased to $125,000; a separate $125,000 limit applies to the Tree Assistance Program.

The 2014 Farm Bill simplifies and modifies the average AGI eligibility provisions. Producers whose total (farm plus nonfarm) average AGI for the 3 tax years preceding the most recent complete tax year exceeds $900,000 are not eligible to receive benefits from most programs administered by FSA and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Previous average AGI provisions specified in the 2008 Farm Bill had different eligibility limits for certain programs based on average farm AGI and, for some programs, on average nonfarm AGI.

The AGI and payment limit eligibility restrictions from the 2014 Farm Bill apply to the 2014 crop, fiscal, or program year for payment limits which encompass the 2010, 2011, and 2012 tax years for purposes of calculating the average AGI, and will be implemented immediately. The regulations in 7 CFR part 1400 will be amended at a later date through rulemaking to reflect the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill.

FSA has determined that, in accordance with the 7 CFR 799.9(d), Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns—Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), continuation of these programs as mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared.

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-11, dated February 13, 2014 (the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is a false down-and-locked landing gear indication, which, on landing, could result in possible collapse of the landing gear. This AD provides the modification as optional terminating action for the repetitive functional checks of the alternate indication phototransistors of the nose and main landing gear. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0171.

Bombardier has issued the following service bulletins.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-11, dated February 13, 2014, requires modification of the EDIS. We have determined that this EDIS modification would eliminate the need for the functional checks of the alternate indication phototransistors of the nose and main landing gear required by this AD. Therefore, this final rule provides for the modification as an optional terminating action for the functional checks. However, we are considering further rulemaking to require the modification on all affected airplanes.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because ambient light and wiring shorts can lead to incorrect illumination of the green lights on the EDIS. This condition could lead to the landing gear not being down and locked, and consequent landing gear collapse during landing. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0171; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-038-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $21,675, or $255 per product, per inspection cycle.

We estimate that it would take up to 40 work-hours per product to do the optional terminating action provided in this AD. Parts would cost up to $19,436.00 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,941,060, or $22,836 per product.

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

According to the manufacturer, all 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 that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 72834). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1019-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.

Catherine Herau of DAHER-SOCATA requested we change the service information references in paragraph (f) of this AD in the Actions and Compliance section to clarify the AD.

We agree with the commenter and changed our final rule AD action to reference the Accomplishment Instructions section of the service information rather than the specific paragraph.

We estimate that this AD will affect 495 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $84,150, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours for each main landing gear and 3 work-hours for the nose landing gear, and require parts costing $100 for each rod and assembly. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1019; 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 (78 FR 72834, December 4, 2013), 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2013 (78 FR 72598). That NPRM proposed 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 received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 72598, December 3, 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 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 72598, December 3, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 72598, December 3, 2013).

We estimate that this AD will affect 66 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $84,150, or $1,275 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 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 by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1012; 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Rockwell Collins TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode select (S) transponders that are installed on airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2013 (78 FR 69318). The NPRM proposed to require testing and calibration of the alignment of the TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode S transponders.

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

Konstantinos Sideris of Airbus commented that AD 92-11-09 (57 FR 20744, May 15, 1992) required converting part number (P/N) 622-7878-020 into P/N 622-7878-301. The commenter stated that the proposed AD would affect both of those P/Ns, and he requested the FAA review the impact of the proposed AD on AD 92-11-09 and consider cancelling AD 92-11-09.

After review, we disagree with cancelling AD 92-11-09 (57 FR 20744, May 15, 1992). This AD requires a different task than that required in AD 92-11-09 and assures timely test and calibration for all affected P/Ns, including those affected and referenced in AD 92-11-09.

We did not change the final rule AD action based on this comment.

The Boeing Company requested we add Models 737 classics, 737NG, 757, and 767 airplanes to the Applicability and exclude the Model 747-8.

We agree that this AD may apply to Models 737, 757, and 767 airplanes; however, paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD is not intended as all-inclusive. Paragraph (c) of this AD states, “. . . transponders that are installed on but not limited to the airplanes . . .” and gives a partial listing of airplanes known to have the affected transponders installed. In our discussions with Rockwell Collins, they discussed that the subject transponders may be installed by supplemental type certificate on models other than the models that are known to have the affected transponders installed.

We added language to paragraph (c), Applicability, to clarify that the listing of airplanes is not all-inclusive.

The Boeing Company requested we adjust the total estimated cost of compliance to account for the added airplane models the commenter requested we add.

We disagree with this comment. We based the estimated cost of compliance on the number of transponder units produced by Rockwell Collins, not the estimated number of airplanes that may have the transponders installed.

We did not change the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Craig Amadeo of Delta Airlines requested we change the language in the AD to clarify that the operators do not have to return the transponders to Rockwell Collins for the testing and calibration. Delta has full capability to test and align the receiver of the affected transponders. The commenter also requested we add more specific language to the AD to clarify the testing and calibration procedures from the component maintenance manual (CMM) required by the AD.

We agree that the operators do not need to return the transponders to Rockwell Collins for the testing and calibration. Any properly certified repair facility may do the required work. We also agree mechanics should know the applicable procedures to use from the CMM. However, the AD directs mechanics to the Rockwell Collins service information that references the specific procedures and figures to use for the required work. We do not agree that quoting the service information in the AD is necessary.

We added language to the final rule AD action to clarify operators do not need to return the transponders to Rockwell Collins for the required testing and calibration.

Robert Semar of United Airlines stated that a normal shop visit with the transponders does not accomplish the testing required by this AD. We infer the commenter wants more service information.

We agree that a normal shop visit will not accomplish the testing required by this AD; however, we disagree that more service information is required. The service letter referenced in the AD identifies the specific procedures required to comply with the AD.

We did not change the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Robert Semar of United Airlines requested we add the cost of removal/installation of the transponders to the cost of compliance section of the AD.

We agree and have added the cost to remove and reinstall the transponders to the estimated cost of compliance for this AD action.

Kevin Hallworth requested we confirm whether the AD should also apply to the Rockwell Collins TPR-901, TDR-94, and TDR-94D Mode S transponders. The commenter asked if they are similarly affected.

We have confirmed that the TPR-901 is not affected by this AD. The associated circuitry in the TPR-901 is significantly different than that of the affected transponders. The TDR-94 and TDR-94D transponders are not affected by this issue and are not part of this AD action.

We did not change the final rule AD action based on this comment.

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 69318, November 19, 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 69318, November 19, 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 4,000 products that are installed on 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.

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 Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2013 (78 FR 60800). The NPRM was prompted by results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The NPRM proposed to require accomplishing modifications to the fuel system. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-07, dated March 1, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0835-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 60800, October 2, 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 60800, October 2, 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 60800, October 2, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 519 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $58,924 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $9,685,666, or $103,039 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-2013-0835; 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-08-25, Amendment 39-15479 (73 FR 21240, April 21, 2008). AD 2008-08-25 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2012 (77 FR 54854). The NPRM was prompted by reports of continued water damage to diode fire card 285U0072-1 in the M826 automatic fire overheat logic test system cardfile following a false FWD CARGO FIRE message, with no change in frequency, which resulted in an air turn back. The NPRM proposed to require installing drain tubes, relocating wire bundle routing, installing a new drip shield and drip shield deflectors, and replacing insulation blankets. For certain airplanes, the NPRM also proposed to concurrently require sealing the drain slot, installing spuds, and installing drain tubes. We are issuing this AD to prevent water from exiting over the edge of the existing drip shield and contaminating electrical components in the M826 cardfile, which could result in an electrical short and potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight.

Since we issued the NPRM (77 FR 54854, September 6, 2012), we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3580, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2013. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3580, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions specified in the NPRM.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3580, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2013, among other changes, revises line number 1087 to 1332 for group 1 airplanes to account for airplanes that had the drain tubes installed in production, adds figures to account for actions required by certain groups, adds brackets and rivets, and changes certain part numbers of certain brackets.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, among other things, clarifies wire routing, allows for trimming of parts, and adds parts to the top kit.

We have added a new paragraph (i) to this final rule to allow for credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3580, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 54854, September 6, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Parcel Service (UPS) and Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 54854, September 6, 2012) to replace Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2011, with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012. UPS explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, revises the effectivity, and includes changes, corrections, and clarifications to the work instructions. UPS reasoned that in order to avoid additional efforts of applying for, approving, and documenting alternative methods of compliance for using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, we should instead revise the NPRM to incorporate Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, which, according to Boeing, would change paragraphs (c)(2), (g), and (h) of the NPRM.

We partially agree. We disagree with the request to change paragraphs (c)(2) and (h) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, adds one new airplane to the effectivity and would require resubmittal of the NPRM (77 FR 54854, September 6, 2012) for public comment on this change, which would delay the publication of this final rule. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the required actions must be conducted to ensure continued safety. We might consider further rulemaking at a later time to address the additional airplane. However, we do agree to revise paragraph (g) of this AD by also referring to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3581, Revision 2, dated September 11, 2012, as an appropriate method of compliance for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 54854, September 6, 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 54854, September 6, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2013 (78 FR 52875). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of small repairs done on the vertical flange of the rib chord, repetitive inspections for cracking along the upper fillet radius of the rib chord, and a large repair or preventive modification if necessary. Accomplishment of a large repair or preventive modification would terminate the actions of the NPRM. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks in the rib upper chord, which could result in the inability of the wing structure to support the limit load condition, and consequent loss of structural integrity of the wing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 52875, August 27, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we revise “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information” in the NPRM (78 FR 52875, August 27, 2013) to instead state that there are no differences. Boeing stated that the NPRM specified the same type, location, and interval of the inspections specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997, for a small repair.

We find that clarification of the requirements of this final rule is necessary in light of the information provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0112, Revision 5, dated July 31, 1997. The post-small-repair inspection is described in Part III of the service information; some of this information is provided in notes, and the description of the area to be inspected needed slight clarification. To ensure that operators understand that all actions specified in Part III are required for compliance, and to give more specific direction to the area of inspection, paragraph (g) in this final rule specifies these actions, including the information in the notes, with slightly different wording to describe the inspection area. Since the inspection is a direct requirement of this final rule, there is a difference between this AD and the service information. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 52875, August 27, 2013) referred to actions specified in “Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57-112; or Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0112.” Boeing stated that only one of these references is required. Boeing added that one of the references did not follow the standard format. Boeing therefore requested that we revise the NPRM to refer to only “Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0112.”

We disagree to revise the source of service information as cited in this final rule. We are required by OFR regulations to precisely specify all possible revisions of this service bulletin by their unique identities. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0112 has actually been revised five times; some versions are old and were published in Boeing's older service bulletin format. The earlier version (“Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57-112”) does not have a separate “Accomplishment Instructions” section. Two citations are therefore necessary to refer to the description of the small repair actions in the service information. However, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this final rule to clarify the use of the different document citations.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 52875, August 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 52875, August 27, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 106 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.

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:

Discussion

On September 23, 2013, at 78 FR 58256, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by removing AD 2012-25-04, Amendment 39-17285 (78 FR 24041, April 24, 2013) and adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3 (except AS350B3 helicopters with modification (MOD) 07 5606 installed), AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. For Model AS350B3 helicopters with MOD 07 5601 installed, the NPRM proposed to require limiting the velocity never exceed speed by installing a placard and revising the RFM, checking the bearings after each flight for separation, a crack, or extrusion, performing a one-time inspection of the bearings, modifying the chin weight support and replacing any bearings with more than 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), removing the additional chin weights and installing blanks, modifying the rotating pitch-change spider assembly, installing a load compensator, and modifying the electrical installation. After modifying the helicopter, the NPRM proposed to require removing the RFM limitations and placards installed previously. For Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP helicopters, and Model AS350B3 helicopters that do not have MOD 07 5601 installed, the NPRM also proposed to require checking the bearings after the last flight of each day and replacing the bearings if there is an extrusion, a crack, or separation. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent vibration due to a failed bearing, failure of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by Emergency AD No. 2012-0257-E, dated December 5, 2012 (EAD 2012-0257-E) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA EAD 2012-0257-E advises of premature failures of bearings on AS350B3 helicopters, and states that the criticality of the bearing failures should apply to all AS355 and AS350 helicopters. As a result, EAD 2012-0257-E requires repetitive post-flight checks of the bearings.

EASA then superseded EAD 2012-0217-E with EASA AD No. 2013-0029, dated February 8, 2013 (AD 2013-0029), to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model AS 350 B3 helicopters modified by MOD 07 5601, except for helicopters modified by MOD 07 5606 in production. EASA advises that MOD 07 5606 restores the tail rotor dynamic load level to that on helicopters before installation of MOD 07 5601 and eliminates the modified loading conditions of bearings which caused the intensified deterioration and reported failures. For these reasons, EASA AD 2013-0029 requires incorporation of MOD 07 5606 as a terminating action.

Since we issued the NPRM, Eurocopter France has changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. This AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 58256, September 23, 2013).

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 helicopter of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed, except for the minor change previously described and formatting changes. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 58256, September 23, 2013) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The EASA AD requires removing the placard and RFM changes with the true airspeed limitation (TAS) and replacing it with an indicated airspeed limitation. Since AD 2012-25-04 did not include the TAS limitation, this AD does not require removing it.

We reviewed Eurocopter Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS350-01.00.66, Revision 1, dated February 15, 2013 (SB AS350-01.00.66), which describes procedures for removing the additional chin weights installed on the tail rotor, installing a load compensator, and modifying the electrical system installation, to reduce the dynamic loads on the tail rotor. Eurocopter refers to the procedures in this SB as MOD 07 5606. SB AS350-01.00.66 only applies to helicopters with MOD 07 5601 installed.

We reviewed one Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with two numbers: No. 01.00.65 for the Model AS350B3 helicopters and No. 01.00.24 for the non-FAA type certificated Model AS550C3 helicopters (EASB 01.00.65). EASB 01.00.65 is Revision 3, dated February 4, 2013. EASB 01.00.65 specifies installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the RFM to limit airspeed to 100 knots IAS, revising the RFM to include a procedure in case of in-flight vibrations originating in the tail rotor and an “engine health check,” checking the bearings after each flight, and performing a one-time inspection of the bearings. EASB 01.00.65 does not apply to helicopters with MOD 07 5606 installed.

We also reviewed one Eurocopter EASB with four numbers: No 05.00.71 for Model AS350B, BA, BB, D, B1, B2, B3, and the non-FAA type certificated L1 helicopters; No. 05.00.63 for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters; No. 05.00.46 for the non-FAA type certificated Model AS550A2, C2, C3, and U2 helicopters; and No. 05.00.42 for the non-FAA type certificated Model AS555AF, AN, SN, UF, and UN helicopters (EASB 05.00.71). EASB 05.00.71 is Revision 2, dated December 19, 2012. EASB 05.00.71 specifies procedures for checking the bearings for deterioration or damage after the last flight of each day. EASB 05.00.71 does not apply to helicopters with MOD 07 5601 installed.

We also reviewed Eurocopter SB No. AS350-64.00.11, Revision 0, dated December 19, 2012 (SB AS350-64.00.11), which describes procedures for modifying the tail rotor chin weight support to prevent interference with the bearings. The manufacturer refers to the procedures in this SB as MOD 07 6604. SB AS350-64.00.11 only applies to helicopters with MOD 07 5601 installed.

We estimate that the pilot checks of the bearings in this AD will affect 938 helicopters of U.S. Registry, and that 50 helicopters will be affected by the remaining requirements. The cost for the pilot checks is minimal.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, installing a placard and revising the RFM requires about .5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $2,150. Disassembling and inspecting the bearings requires about 6 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $510 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $25,500. Modifying the chin weight support requires about 8 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $680, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $34,000. Removing the additional chin weights installed on the tail rotor, modifying the rotating pitch-change spider assembly, installing a load compensator, and modifying the electrical system installation requires about 200 work-hours, and required parts will cost $18,343, for a cost per helicopter of $35,343, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $1,767,150.

If necessary, replacing the bearings installed on the aircraft requires about 6 work-hours, at an average labor rate of $85, and required parts will cost $2,415, for a cost per helicopter of $2,925.

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 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-08-04, Amendment 39-15456 (73 FR 19975, April 14, 2008). AD 2008-08-04 applied to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60325). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72350). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right main landing gear (MLG), and repair or replacement of any cracked MLG fitting if necessary; and modification of the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, which ended the repetitive inspections. The NPRM also proposed to require, for airplanes on which certain modifications or repairs have been done, repetitive inspections for cracks of the forward lug of each left-hand and right-hand MLG support rib 5 fitting, and repair if necessary; and to remove Model A318 series airplanes from the applicability. The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks found in the forward lug of the MLG support rib 5 fitting. The SNPRM proposed to revise the NPRM by adding Model A318 airplanes and others to the applicability; and requiring repetitive detailed inspections for cracks of the MLG support 5 fitting, and repair of any cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the forward lug of the MLG, which could result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0032, dated February 24, 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.

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it generally agrees with the intent of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012).

US Airways (AWE) stated that it agrees with the need to add the post-modification inspections, because the mandated bushing modification has not proven to be an effective permanent corrective action. AWE also stated that it agrees with the method and frequency of these additional inspections.

UAL requested that we extend the compliance time specified in paragraph (n)(2) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) from within 2,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the modification or within 250 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, without exceeding 3 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. UAL requested that the compliance time be changed to within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD or within 6 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. UAL stated that the majority of its Model A319 and A320 series airplanes have accumulated more than 2,000 flight cycles since accomplishing the modification. UAL stated that it is requesting this change in order to “reduce the impact due to the special routing required for the inspection,” possible MLG removal for repair/replacement of MLG support rib 5 fitting, and a large demand on man-power. UAL stated that extending the compliance time will allow it to perform the required inspection at a more suitable maintenance opportunity.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. The commenter did not provide technical justification for extending the compliance time. The compliance time for the actions specified in paragraph (n)(2) in this AD was developed after conducting a risk assessment and analyzing the impact on operators. In consideration of these factors, we determined that the compliance times, as proposed, represent an appropriate interval in which to conduct the inspection after the modification within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (u) of this AD, we might approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Airbus and AWE requested that we add Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2012, to paragraph (m) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012). Airbus also requested that we add Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 03, dated April 23, 2007; and Revision 04, dated June 4, 2008; to paragraph (t)(5) of the SNPRM. AWE stated that adding Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2012, as authorized instructions for modification work would reduce alternative method of compliance coordination.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2012, states that “no additional work is required by this revision for airplanes modified by any previous issue.” However, this service bulletin revision adds a liquid penetrant inspection. We have added Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2012, in paragraph (m) of this final rule as an appropriate source of service information, and specified that the liquid penetrant inspection specified in this service information is not required by this AD. We have added paragraphs (t)(5)(iv) and (t)(5)(v) to this final rule to provide credit for certain actions accomplished before May 19, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-08-04, Amendment 39-15456 (73 FR 19975, April 18, 2008)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 03, dated April 23, 2007; or Revision 04, dated June 4, 2008.

AWE requested we revise the service bulletin reference in the Relevant Service Information section of the SNPRM from “A320-75-1168” to “A320-57-1168.” Airbus requested that we correct references to Airbus Repair Drawings “R57258209” and “R57245019” in paragraph (g)(3) of the SNPRM to Airbus Repair Drawing “R572-58209” and “R572-45019,” respectively. Airbus also requested that we amend paragraph (h)(2) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) to refer to “NTM task 57-29-03-270-801-A-01 for A318/A319/A320 and NTM task 57-29-04-270-801-A-01 for A321 [series airplanes].”

We agree with the commenters' requests. The Relevant Service Information section of the SNPRM referenced by AWE is not restated in this final rule; therefore, no change to this final rule is needed in this regard. The content of paragraph (g)(3) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) referenced by Airbus was located in paragraph (j)(3) of the SNPRM, not in paragraph (g)(3) of the SNPRM, as the commenter specified. We have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (j)(3) of this final rule accordingly.

AWE requested that we include Airbus Repair Drawing R572-48341 in paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012). AWE stated that this drawing is the current and most advanced version of the repair scheme for corrosion and crack findings, and that Airbus issues this drawing when operators request repair design data. AWE also stated that there are still some issues with the details of this repair drawing, but it has collected comments and submitted them to Airbus for incorporation. AWE also noted that Airbus drawing number “R572481” cited (by a different commenter) under “Request to Reference a Repair Drawing” in the preamble of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) should be “R572-48341.”

We disagree with the commenter's request. The commenter did not provide specific data to substantiate that airplanes repaired with Airbus Repair Drawing R572-48341 would be applicable to the MLG support rib 5 fitting configuration. The commenter also did not provide justification for including a document with potential errors. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (u) of this AD, we might approve requests to include airplanes repaired by Airbus Repair Drawing R572-48341 as an appropriate action for the MLG support rib 5 fitting repair specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

We have converted table 1 to paragraph (k) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) to the text given in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this final rule for formatting purposes only.

We have also revised table 2 to paragraph (r)(4) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) to figure 1 to paragraph (r)(4) of this AD for formatting purposes only.

We have revised the citation of the service information referenced in paragraph (t)(2) of the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) and moved the service information into new paragraphs (t)(2)(i) and (t)(2)(ii) of this AD. The documents have not changed.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 60325, October 3, 2012).

This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:

• Although the MCAI or service information allows further flight after cracks are found during compliance with certain required actions, paragraphs (l) and (p) of this AD require repair or replacement before further flight.

• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2012, describes a liquid penetrant inspection. This AD does not require that inspection.

We estimate that this AD will affect about 740 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2008-08-04, Amendment 39-15456 (73 FR 19975, April 14, 2008), and retained in this AD take about 73 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $3,860 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $10,065 per product.

We estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be up to $188,700, or $255 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2011-1253; 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:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. Durable infant and toddler standards must be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2)(H) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “infant carriers” as durable infant or toddler products. The Commission has identified at least four types of products that fall within the product category of “infant carriers,” including: Frame backpack carriers, hand-held infant carriers, slings, and soft infant and toddler carriers.

On April 5, 2013, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for soft infant and toddler carriers. 78 FR 20511. The NPR proposed to adopt as a mandatory standard the current voluntary standard for soft infant and toddler carriers, ASTM F2236-13, “Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers” (ASTM F2236-13), without alteration.

The Commission is issuing a final mandatory safety standard for soft infant and toddler carriers. Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public to develop this standard, largely through the ASTM process. After publication of the NPR, ASTM approved two revised versions of F2236-13, F2236-13a, on November 1, 2013, and F2236-14, on January 1, 2014. The revisions included in ASTM F2236-14 clarify several issues raised in the comments received on the NPR. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the revisions included in ASTM F2236-14 adequately address the comments received on the NPR. Section V of the preamble below discusses clarifying changes to the standard. The final rule for soft infant and toddler carriers incorporates ASTM F2236-14, by reference, without alteration.

ASTM F2236-14 defines a “soft infant and toddler carrier” as “a product, normally of sewn fabric construction, which is designed to contain a full term infant to a toddler, generally in an upright position, in close proximity to the caregiver.” Additionally, soft infant and toddler carriers are generally designed to carry a child “between 7 and 45 pounds.” ASTM F2236-14 explains that soft infant and toddler carriers are “normally `worn' by the caregiver with a child positioned in the carrier and the weight of the child and carrier suspended from one or both shoulders of the caregiver. These products may be worn on the front, side, or back of the caregiver's body, with the infant either facing towards or away from the caregiver.” Typically, children are carried in soft infant and toddler carriers on the front of a caregiver; but some products on the market can be configured to carry a child upright on a caregiver's front, back, or hip.

In the United States, soft infant and toddler carriers are available in two broad classes: Structured and nonstructured. Structured soft infant and toddler carriers contain straps and waist belts that connect to the seat area and other carrier components with buckles, straps, and mechanical fasteners. The straps, belts, and seating area of these products are often stiffened with padding and typically have a heavy textile covering. Nonstructured products consist of a flat, textile center with waist straps and very long upper straps (5 to 6 feet) that wrap around the caregiver and are secured by typing the ends of the straps, such as the mei-tai design. ASTM F2236-14 does not distinguish between products based on whether they are structured or nonstructured; therefore, requirements apply equally to all types of soft infant and toddler carriers.

ASTM F2236-14's definition of a “soft infant and toddler carrier” distinguishes soft infant and toddler carriers from other types of infant carriers that are also worn by a caregiver but that are not covered under ASTM F-2236-14, specifically slings (including wraps), and framed backpack carriers. Soft infant and toddler carriers are designed to carry a child in an upright position. Slings are designed to carry a child in a reclined position. However, some slings may also be used to carry a child upright. Thus, the primary distinction between a sling and a soft infant and toddler carrier is that a sling allows for carrying a child in a reclined position. Different hazard patterns arise from carrying a child in a reclined position. Accordingly, slings are not covered by the standard for soft infant and toddler carriers. Like soft infant and toddler carriers, framed backpack carriers are intended to carry a child in an upright position. However, framed backpack carriers are distinguishable from soft infant and toddler carriers because typically, backpack carriers are constructed of sewn fabric over a rigid frame and are intended solely for carrying a child on the caregiver's back.

The preamble to the NPR summarized incident data involving soft infant and toddler carriers reported to the Commission from January 1, 1999 to September 10, 2012. 78 FR 20513 (April 5, 2013). CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis updated this information for the final rule to include soft infant and toddler carrier-related incident data reported to the Commission from September 11, 2012 through July 15, 2013. During the September 11, 2012 to July 15, 2013 time frame, CPSC received 31 new incident reports related to soft infant and toddler carriers. Two of the incidents were fatal, and 29 were nonfatal. Twenty-four of the 29 nonfatal incidents involved injuries. The total count of reported incidents includes emergency department-treated injuries ( i.e., injuries reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS)). 1 CPSC staff cannot present national emergency department-treated injury estimates for the final rule due to insufficient numbers of NEISS incidents reported during the time period. The number of incidents occurring in 2012 and 2013 is subject to change because the CPSC continues to collect information about such incidents.

Both reported fatalities involved suffocation. One suffocation fatality occurred in 2010. The decedent was a 17-day-old infant who was being carried in a soft infant and toddler carrier—facing the mother—while the mother ran errands. The mother reportedly breast fed the victim while walking. The report is unclear about whether the victim was out of the carrier or in the carrier while being fed. The mother found the child nonresponsive in the carrier. The child was placed on life support, which was later removed due to the child's poor prognosis. The second suffocation fatality occurred in 2011. The decedent, a 4-month-old female, was placed prone to sleep on a bed while still in a soft infant carrier. 2

Twenty-nine soft infant and toddler carrier-related nonfatal incidents were reported to the CPSC from September 11, 2012 to July 15, 2013. The incident reports demonstrate that an injury occurred in 24 of the 29 incidents. The children's age was unreported or unknown in four of the 29 nonfatal incidents. For the remaining 25 incidents, the ages provided in the reports ranged from 1 month to 18 months, with 64 percent of the total reports involving children 6 months of age or younger.

Among the 24 nonfatal injuries reported, four incidents required hospitalization. Two of the four injuries requiring hospitalization, a skull fracture and a leg fracture, resulted from infants falling out of a soft infant and toddler carrier. The other two injuries that required hospitalization were head injuries to the infant resulting from the caregiver falling. Other injuries included contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, mostly of the head and face. Fourteen of the injuries resulted from falls, either from the caregiver falling while wearing the carrier or from the infant falling out of the carrier.

The remaining five incident reports stated problems with the product but indicated that either no injury had occurred or the report failed to provide information about any injury.

CPSC identified hazard patterns among the 31 new incident reports that were similar to the hazard patterns identified among the incidents considered for the NPR. The primary hazard associated with use of a soft infant and toddler carrier continues to be falling, either caregivers falling while wearing the carrier and injuring the child in the carrier, or children falling or facing the risk of falling from the carrier. Hazard patterns are grouped into the following categories in order of frequency of incident reports:

• Caregiver falls (11)  3 ;

• structure, fit, and position issues (7);

• design and finish-related issues  4 (2), (which are also among the 7 in the previous category);

• strap issues (2);

• issues with stitching/seams (1); and

• other issues (10).

Caregiver Falls: Eleven of the 31 incidents (35 percent) reported injuries to the infant in the carrier, when the caregiver slipped or tripped and fell. All of these were emergency department-treated injury (NEISS data) reports.

Structure, fit, and position issues: Seven of the 31 incidents (23 percent) were related to aspects of the leg- and torso-opening design, how the carrier held the infant, and where the soft infant and toddler carrier was positioned on the caregiver. Examples of scenarios reported include: an infant slipping far down into the carrier and suffering an injury when the caregiver bent over; an infant falling out of the carrier when the caregiver bent forward; and leg circulation-related injuries to the infant. Three injuries were reported in this category, including one hospitalization.

Design-related issues: Two of the reports included in the structure, fit, and position category above stated complaints about how the carrier fit on the caregiver and that the infant got too hot when the carrier was used with the carrier insert. A carrier insert is available with some soft infant and toddler carriers to help support a young infant's head and neck. No one reported injuries in this category.

Strap issues: Two of the 31 incidents (six percent) reported issues with straps, mostly regarding the adjuster breaking or slipping. Both incidents resulted in injuries, including one hospitalization for a skull fracture stemming from a fall when the strap came undone.

Issues with stitching/seams: One incident report (three percent) stated that stitching on a carrier component came undone. However, the infant sustained no injury.

Other issues: Ten incident reports (32 percent) involved non-product-related issues or provided insufficient information for CPSC staff to determine definitively how the product contributed to the incident. The two fatalities are included in this category—one case of an infant suffering respiratory distress while being carried facing inward, and the other case involved an infant put to sleep in a prone position on a bed while still in a soft infant and toddler carrier. In each case, CPSC staff concluded that insufficient information was reported to determine a predominant factor about the product that contributed to the death. Five reports were of incidental injuries sustained by infants while being carried around in a soft infant and toddler carrier. Examples of such incidents include an infant who hit a pole after a bus in which the child was riding suddenly accelerated and an infant who got hurt while being put into a carrier. The remaining three reports involved infants who fell out of the carrier, with no additional information specified.

The soft infant and toddler carrier NPR presented a separate national injury estimate for the 13-year period from January 1999 through December 2011. However, insufficient emergency department-treated injuries associated with soft infant and toddler carriers in 2012 prevent derivation of reportable national estimates. 5 In addition, until NEISS data for 2013 are finalized in spring 2014, partial estimates for 2013 are not available. Hence, injury estimates are not presented separately in this final rule. However, the emergency department-treated injuries are included in the total count of reported incidents presented in section III.C above.

CPSC received five comments regarding the NPR, including comments from industry, consumer groups, trade associations, and consumers. The comments address eight separate issues related to fastener strength testing requirements, warning label revisions, and the effective date of the final rule. Two commenters generally supported the rule. Comments submitted in response to the NPR are available at: www.regulations.gov , by searching under the docket number of the rulemaking, CPSC-2013-0014. The Commission finds that revisions made to the ASTM voluntary standard, which are incorporated into ASTM F2236-14, approved on January 1, 2014, and published in January 2014, adequately address comments received on the NPR. Accordingly, the Commission will incorporate by reference the most recent version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2236-14, as the mandatory standard for soft infant and toddler carriers.

We summarize the comments received on the NPR and CPSC's responses below. To make identification of the comments and our responses easier, we placed the word “Comment,” in parentheses, before the comment's description, and the word “Response,” in parentheses, before our response. Additionally, we have numbered each comment to help distinguish among comments. The number assigned to each comment is for organizational purposes only and does not signify the comment's value or importance, or the order in which we received the comment.

(Comment 1) Two commenters stated that the specified fastener strength test load of 80 pounds in section 7.7.2 of ASTM F2236-13 is too high for soft infant and toddler carriers whose manufacturer-recommended maximum occupant weight for the product is less than 45 pounds. The commenters suggested using a sliding scale for the test load that would adjust the test load by 1 pound for every pound the carrier is rated above or below 45 pounds. For example, for soft infant and toddler carriers designed for a maximum occupant weight of 25 pounds, commenters recommended a fastener test load of 60 pounds (80 pounds minus 20 pounds) instead of an 80-pound force. One commenter stated that for carriers designed for very small occupants, it would be difficult for every load-bearing fastener to be designed to meet the 80-pound test load because such fasteners tend to be large and difficult to handle gently when close to a small infant.

(Response 1) The Commission disagrees with the commenters and declines to modify the final rule based on this comment. ASTM F2236-13 added requirements for fastener strength testing. Each unique load-bearing fastener, except load-bearing fasteners used for a leg opening adjustment, must not break or disengage when subjected to a tensile load of 80-pound force for 5 seconds. The force is applied to the straps or soft goods on either side of the fastener. Leg opening adjustment fasteners are tested to a 45-pound force.

As noted in the NPR, CPSC staff tested fasteners on 14 different soft infant and toddler carriers, including recalled carriers. The manufacturer's recommended maximum occupant weight of the carriers tested ranged from 20 pounds to 45 pounds. CPSC staff found that most of the tested fasteners failed at loads well above the 80-pound force used in the test, while some of the fasteners on recalled products (which were rated at 26-pound maximum occupant weight) failed at 22 pounds to 55 pounds. The Commission agrees with CPSC staff that lowering the test load to a 60-pound force on a carrier rated at 25 pounds does not provide a sufficient safety factor, considering that fasteners from some recalled carriers failed at 55 pounds during testing. Based on the test results, the Commission finds that an 80-pound test load is appropriate, even for carriers with maximum occupant weights below 45 pounds.

All of the buckle and strap fasteners on the 14 carriers that CPSC staff tested were made from plastic. CPSC staff concluded that the characteristics of the plastic used for the fasteners dictated the fastener's ability to withstand the test load. The plastic material on the fasteners that fractured at a lower load was much less ductile, resulting in the fastener fracturing instead of deforming. Accordingly, CPSC staff found that smaller fasteners were as capable as larger fasteners at meeting the 80-pound test load. Staff concluded that fastener strength was not necessarily proportional to fastener size.

CPSC staff states that the 80-pound test load for the fastener pull test is not directly related to the maximum carrier weight rating. Rather, the 80-pound test load was established based on testing the strength of fasteners on carriers already on the market. Fasteners that meet the required test load are robust enough for expected use during the life of the product. Moreover, CPSC staff believes that it is reasonably foreseeable that some caregivers may use soft infant and toddler carriers with infants whose weight exceeds the manufacturer's recommended occupant weight.

For the reasons discussed, the Commission declines to modify the final rule based on this comment.

(Comment 2) Two commenters stated that fasteners that support the head should be exempt from load testing. Non-load-bearing fasteners intended to retain items such as, but not limited to, hoods, bibs, and toy rings are exempt from load testing in ASTM F2236-13. One of the commenters stated: “head support for new born babies is critical,” but to achieve a good, adjustable head support requires fasteners that are slim and easy to use. The commenter designs head support fasteners to carry a certain load; however, the commenter stated that these fasteners are not load bearing and should be exempt from load testing in section 6.4 of the standard.

(Response 2) ASTM balloted and approved two clarifying changes to Note 1 in section 6.4 of the standard, which have been incorporated into ASTM F2236-14. These changes address the commenters' concern. Note 1 exempts non-load-bearing fasteners from the fastener strength tests in section 6.4 and lists examples of non-load-bearing fasteners that are exempt. We note that the list in Note 1 is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative, and that other features attached to a soft infant and toddler carrier by a non-load-bearing fastener are also exempt from the fastener strength tests in section 6.4.

ASTM F2236-13, the proposed standard for adoption in the NPR, stated that fasteners intended to retain items such as “hoods, bibs and toy rings” were exempt from testing. The ASTM subcommittee for soft infant and toddler carriers was aware of a feature called a “sleeping hood” that is attached to a soft infant and toddler carrier by non-load bearing fasteners. The “sleeping hood” feature was intended to be captured in ASTM F2236-13 Note 1 with the phrase “hoods.” To clarify that non-load-bearing fasteners used to retain “sleeping hoods” are exempt from testing, ASTM changed the word “hoods” in Note 1 to “sleeping hoods.” This revision was approved and published in ASTM F2236-13a.

Subsequently, based on a manufacturer's concern that Note 1 was still unclear about whether head adjustment fasteners that were non-load bearing had to be tested, ASTM balloted and approved another modification to Note 1. The second modification was incorporated into ASTM F2236-14 and added “head adjustment fasteners” to the list of examples of fasteners exempt from testing in Note 1. The Commission agrees with the clarification and believes that these revisions to the voluntary standard address the commenters' concern.

To the extent that commenters are suggesting that any potential load-bearing fastener that supports the head should be excluded from the fastener strength test in section 6.4 of the standard, the Commission disagrees. CPSC found that on the 14 carriers tested, the uppermost fastener generally supports the infant's upper torso and shoulders, as well as the head, and therefore, the fastener is critical to securing the infant in the carrier. Load-bearing fasteners that support the head, upper torso, and shoulders are not exempt from fastener-load testing requirements. The commenter apparently does not intend to exempt this type of fastener from testing.

(Comment 3) One commenter stated that the strap slippage requirement as articulated in the standard (ASTM F2236-13, paragraphs 6.4.1 and 6.4.2) can result in a technical failure of an otherwise safe product. The commenter found that during product testing, certain straps can slip more than 1 inch but in a direction that makes the straps become tighter, not looser. The commenter asserted that this does not compromise safety. The commenter suggested that the language in paragraph 6.4.1 should be changed from “. . . adjustable elements in straps shall not slip more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) when tested . . .” to “. . . adjustable elements in straps shall not loosen more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) when tested . . . .”

(Response 3) The strap slippage requirement in section 6.4.1 of ASTM F2236-13, the standard referenced in the NPR, prevents the fastener straps from slipping an appreciable amount through the buckles during fastener strength testing. Significant slippage can result in a minimal load being held by the fastener/strap and could result in the strap pulling out of the fastener or loosening to the point that the infant could fall out of the carrier. The commenter seeks to clarify that straps that tighten during the test do not constitute a test failure.

The Commission agrees that straps that tighten during testing should not fail the strap retention requirement in the standard. However, based on the CPSC staff's assessment, the Commission finds that use of the word “slip” in the standard is more accurate than “loosen.” The amount of strap “slip” through a fastener can be measured; whereas, CPSC staff is uncertain how to measure strap “loosening.” Additionally, the requirement for support/shoulder strap slippage during the dynamic and static load testing in paragraph 6.2 uses the same wording, which states: “adjustable sections of the support/shoulder straps shall not slip more than 1 in. (25 mm) per strap from their original adjusted position . . .” Therefore, the Commission will not replace the word “slip” with “loosen” in the final rule, as suggested by the commenter.

After publication of the NPR, ASTM balloted and approved a modification to the voluntary standard that addresses the commenter's concern about straps that tighten during testing. ASTM F2236-14 incorporates a revision to sections 6.2.2, 6.4.1, and 6.4.2 of the voluntary standard to state: “straps shall not slip, in a manner that loosens the strap, by more than 1 inch.” This modification was included in the voluntary standard, beginning with revision ASTM F2236-13a.

The Commission finds that the revisions now incorporated into sections 6.2.2, 6.4.1, and 6.4.2 of ASTM F2236-14 addresses the commenter's concern and clarifies when fasteners pass the fastener strength test requirement without substantively altering the test method.

(Comment 4) One commenter noted that in ASTM F2236-13, the text height requirement for the warnings provided with product instructions specified in section 9.2.2 needs to be modified to match the text height requirement for warning labels in section 8.3.1. The commenter stated that if this modification is not made, section 9.2.2 would require every letter of warning text to be at least 0.1″ high, instead of only the upper case letters, as is the case in section 8.3.1.

(Response 4) The Commission agrees that the text height requirement for warnings should be consistent throughout the standard. To address the commenter's concern, ASTM balloted and approved the following modified text in section 9.2.2, as follows (additions are shown by italics):

Section 9.2.2 of the voluntary standard incorporates this revision, beginning with ASTM F2236-13a. The Commission believes that the revised language addresses the commenter's concern.

(Comment 5) One commenter stated that the required warning statement should read: “Infants, especially those under four months, can suffocate in this product if face is pressed tight against your body,” rather than the warning statement in the proposed rule, as provided in the ASTM standard: “Suffocation Hazard—Infants under 4 months can suffocate in this product if face is pressed tight against your body.” The commenter said that this warning language does not adequately warn the user of the risk of suffocation for infants over four months and that the suggested warning statement will alert parents and other caregivers to a risk to older babies as well.

(Response 5) The Commission disagrees that the proposed suffocation warning, as provided in the ASTM voluntary standard, does not adequately warn users of the risk of suffocation. The primary mechanism for suffocation in a soft infant and toddler carrier is the infant's face being pressed tightly against a caretaker's body, obstructing the nose and mouth and keeping the infant's head from moving. Infants younger than 4 months old are mostly at risk because they do not have the head control or the muscle strength to move their head away if their airway becomes obstructed. By 4 months of age, infants have increased neck strength and can hold their heads up and explore their surroundings while the caretaker is walking. Infants who are 4 months old can be carried in the outward-facing position in soft infant and toddler carriers that allow this carry position. At around age 6 months, infants begin to sit upright unassisted. Caretakers can carry infants of this age in a soft infant and toddler carrier on the hip or on the caregiver's back, depending on the caretaker's level of comfort. As children reach toddlerhood, caregivers can carry children in this age group in a carrier on the hip or back depending on the carrier type. Given that infants from age 4 months and older have developed head control and muscular strength and can be placed in outward facing, hip, and back carry positions, their face is less likely to become pressed tightly into a caretaker's body. Therefore, the risk of suffocation for these children is low. The Commission has not received data indicating that a risk of suffocation exists for children 4 months and older.

Identifying explicitly children who are most at risk does not suggest that others are not at risk. However, guidelines for warning labels recommend focusing on the most likely and most serious risks (Laughery and Hammond, 1999; Wogalter, 2006). Warnings about low-probability events ( i.e., older infants suffocating in soft infant carriers) may reduce the believability or arousal strength of warnings that caution of more likely risks ( i.e., infants under 4 months suffocating in soft infant carriers). The Commission finds that the current ASTM warning label about the suffocation hazard is sufficient without modification.

(Comment 6) One commenter stated: “we are concerned that raising the upper weight limits, for the purpose of ensuring that all soft infant and toddler carriers on the market are covered by the rule, brings in carriers that might have a greater risk of instability and falls due to the extra weight load relative to the weight and strength of the caregiver. We would urge the Commission to include an adequate alert to this risk in the required warnings and instructions.”

(Response 6) During the rulemaking, CPSC staff identified soft infant and toddler carriers on the market that have a manufacturer-recommended upper weight limit of 45 pounds. The Commission believes that expanding the scope of the standard to increase the upper weight limit from 25 pounds to 45 pounds is necessary for the standard to cover all products on the market. However, for the Commission to include a warning statement about the greater risk of instability and falls involving products with higher weight limits, data must be available to demonstrate that carrying heavier children in soft infant and toddler carriers presents a greater risk of instability and falls. At this time, the available data do not support this position. Furthermore, the commenter did not provide data demonstrating that products with higher weight limits present a greater risk of instability and falls than carriers with a lower weight limit. Therefore, at this time, the Commission declines to modify the warning label as suggested by the commenter.

(Comment 7) One commenter recommended that the CPSC require that products manufactured after the effective date of the final rule be marked as compliant, so that consumers can identify clearly products that meet the new mandatory standard for soft infant and toddler carriers.

(Response 7) The Commission finds that sufficient incentive exists for compliant producers to label their products as compliant with the final standard for soft infant and toddler carriers. A final rule implementing testing, certification, and labeling of children's products in section 14 of the CPSA, as amended by the CPSIA, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification, 16 CFR part 1107 (the 1107 rule), became effective on February 13, 2013. Under the 1107 rule, a manufacturer or importer may label a certified compliant product as “Meets CPSC Safety Requirements.” Because producers are already allowed to label compliant products as such under the 1107 rule, adding this option to the soft infant and toddler carrier standard would be redundant. The Commission declines to change to the final rule based on this comment.

(Comment 8) Two commenters address the 6-month effective date proposed in the NPR. One commenter, representing several advocacy groups, expressed support for the 6-month effective date. Another commenter, a soft infant and toddler carrier manufacturer, recommended a 12-month effective date, stating that the manufacturing process can take up to 6 months, and the product may be stocked in a warehouse for additional months, depending on sales.

(Response 8) The final standard will not be applied retroactively to products manufactured prior to the effective date of the final rule. Thus, any products warehoused before the effective date will not be affected by the standard. Manufacturers should be able to comply with the mandatory standard within 6 months of the final rule's publication. Manufacturers whose products do not comply with the standard will require some product modification. However, product modification is expected to involve minor changes, such as adding or changing straps or fasteners. Moreover, ASTM F2236-13 was adopted by ASTM in March 2013, and became effective in September 2013. Although the Commission is adopting ASTM F2236-14 as the mandatory standard, no substantive changes have been made to the voluntary standard since ASTM F2236-13. Manufacturers that comply with ASTM F2236-13 have already made, or have begun to make, the necessary modifications. The Commission declines to change the effective date of the final rule based on this comment.

The Commission is issuing this final rule for soft infant and toddler carriers that incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard for soft infant and toddler carriers, ASTM F2236-14. Together with the changes made in ASTM F2236-12, ASTM F2236-13, and ASTM F2236-13a, ASTM F2236-14 reflects the most significant revisions to the standard to date. Revisions to the voluntary standard include modified and new requirements developed by CPSC staff, working with stakeholders on the ASTM subcommittee task group, to address the hazards associated with soft infant and toddler carriers. After the comment period for the NPR closed, the ASTM F15.21 Soft Infant and Toddler Carrier subcommittee held a teleconference on August 12, 2013, to discuss comments submitted on the NPR. The subcommittee discussed the basis for each comment and reached a consensus on revisions to be submitted for ballot. The subcommittee chair balloted the proposed revisions to ASTM F2236-13 for concurrent ASTM Main Committee F15 and Subcommittee F15.21 consideration on August 23, 2013, with a 1- month comment period. The August 23, 2013 ballot contained three revisions to the voluntary soft infant and toddler carrier standard:

• Revisions to sections 6.2.2, 6.4.1, and 6.4.2 to clarify that during the dynamic load, static load, and fastener strength tests, straps shall not slip, in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 inch.

• A revision to Note 1 in section 6.4 to clarify that “sleeping hoods” are an example of non-load-bearing fasteners that are exempt from fastener strength testing.

• A revision to section 9.2.2 to clarify that the text height requirements for the warnings included with instructions in section 9.2.2 are the same as the text height requirements for warnings required in section 8.3.1 of the voluntary standard.

On September 26, 2013, the ASTM F15.21 Soft Infant and Toddler Carrier subcommittee met to discuss results of the items balloted on August 23, 2013. One manufacturer wanted the voluntary standard to further clarify that fasteners used for adjusting the head portion of the carrier were exempt from fastener strength testing because such fasteners are not load bearing. As a result, the subcommittee chair developed a draft ballot item that proposed to add “head adjustment fasteners” to the list of examples of fasteners that are exempt from load testing listed in Note 1 of section 6.4. The subcommittee chair balloted the proposed revision to ASTM F2236-13a for concurrent ASTM Main Committee F15 and Subcommittee F15.21 consideration on November 6, 2013, with a 1-month comment period. ASTM did not receive any negative votes on the balloted revision, and approved the revised standard, ASTM F2236-14, on January 1, 2014. ASTM published ASTM F2236-14 in January 2014.

We summarize the provisions of ASTM F2236-14 below. Each revision to ASTM F2236-13 discussed above is described below in more detail in the relevant section of the standard where the change appears. ASTM F2236-14 includes the following key provisions: scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.

Scope. The scope of the voluntary standard was broadened in December 2012 to include soft infant and toddler carriers with an upper weight limit of up to 45 pounds. Previously, it was unclear whether carriers with upper weight limits over 25 pounds fell within the standard. Expanding the scope of the standard clarifies that all soft infant and toddler carrier products currently on the market fall within the standard. The name of the standard was changed in 2012 to include the word “toddler,” to clarify that toddlers can also be carried in these products. The scope of the standard also distinguishes soft infant and toddler carriers from other wearable infant carrier products. The scope provides that soft infant and toddler carriers are “normally of sewn fabric construction,” hold the child “generally in an upright position,” and “may be worn on the front, side, or back of the caregiver's body.” Finally, the scope of the standard states that the standard does not apply to infant slings.

Terminology. Section 3.1 of the standard includes 14 definitions to help explain general requirements and performance requirements. Section 3.1.7 of the standard explains that a “leg opening” is the “opening in the soft carrier through which the occupant's legs extend when the product is used in the manufacturer's recommended use position.” Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.13 of ASTM F2236-14, respectively, explain that a “dynamic load” is the “application of impulsive force through free fall of a weight,” and that a “static load” is a “vertically downward force applied by a calibrated force gage or by dead weights.” Beginning in 2012, the standard included a new definition for “carrying position” to clarify methods for dynamic and static load testing in section 7 of the standard. Finally, in 2013, the standard was updated to include a new definition for “fastener” to aid in a new test for fastener strength and strap retention.

General Requirements. ASTM F2236-14 includes general requirements that the products must meet, as well as specified test methods to ensure compliance with the general requirements, which include:

• Restrictions on sharp points or edges, as defined by 16 CFR §§ 1500.48 and .49;

• restrictions on small parts, as defined by 16 CFR part 1501;

• restrictions on lead in paint, as set forth in 16 CFR part 1303;

• requirements for locking and latching devices;

• requirements for permanent warning labels;

• restrictions on flammability, as set forth in 16 CFR part 1610;

• requirements for toy accessories, as set forth in ASTM F 963.

The flammability requirement in section 5.7 of the standard was changed, beginning with ASTM F2236-13, from a flammable solids requirement (16 CFR 1500.3(c)(6)(vi)), to meet the more stringent flammability requirement for wearing apparel (16 CFR part 1610). Adopting the wearing apparel flammability requirement in the soft infant and toddler standard makes it consistent with other wearable infant carriers made of sewn fabric, such as slings, to prevent a foreseeable fire hazard in all wearable infant carriers.

Performance Requirements and Test Methods. ASTM F2236-14 provides performance requirements and test methods that are designed to protect against falls from the carrier due to large leg openings, breaking fasteners or seams, and straps that slip, including:

Leg Openings —Tested leg openings must not permit passage of a test sphere weighing 5 pounds that is 14.75 inches in circumference.

Dynamic and Static Load —Beginning with the 2012 version of ASTM F2236, the dynamic load test was strengthened from requiring a 25-pound shot bag to be dropped, free fall, from 1 inch above the seat area onto the carrier seat 1,000 times, to requiring testing with a 25-pound shot bag, or a shot bag equal to the manufacturer's maximum occupant weight limit, whichever is heavier. Additionally, the static load test was revised—from requiring a 75-pound weight for testing—to requiring a 75-pound weight, or a weight equal to three times the manufacturer's recommended maximum occupant weight, whichever is greater, to be placed in the seat area of the carrier for 1 minute. Such revisions to the dynamic and static load tests strengthen the test requirements, by requiring that products with a maximum recommended weight of 45 pounds be tested to a 135-pound weight instead of 75 pounds, which represents an 80 percent increase in the severity of the requirement.

ASTM F2236-14 requires that testing conducted with the new required loads must not result in a “hazardous condition,” as defined in the general requirements, or result in a structural failure, such as fasteners breaking or disengaging, or seams separating when tested in accordance with the dynamic and static load testing methods. Additionally, the standard provides that dynamic and static load testing must not result in adjustable sections of support/shoulder straps slipping more than 1 inch per strap from their original adjusted position after testing.

Section 6.2.2 of the standard on Support/Shoulder Strap Slippage was modified beginning with ASTM F2236-13a. The modification clarifies what constitutes passing or failing the strap slippage test. Section 6.2.2 was amended to state: “Adjustable sections of support/shoulder straps shall not slip , in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 in. (25 mm) per strap from their original adjusted position after dynamic and static load testing is performed in accordance with 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, respectively.” The amendment allows straps to tighten during testing but not loosen more than 1 inch, which is the intent of the testing.

Fastener Strength and Strap Retention— ASTM F2236-14 includes a new component-level performance requirement that was added to the standard in 2013 to evaluate the strength of fasteners and strap retention to help prevent falls from a carrier. Previously, soft infant and toddler carriers were recalled due to an occupant fall hazard caused by broken fasteners that passed the static and dynamic performance requirements in the then existing standard, ASTM F2236-10. Accordingly, the performance requirement in section 6.4 of ASTM F2236-14 states that load-bearing fasteners at the shoulder and waist of soft infant and toddler carriers, such as buckles, loops, and snaps, may not break or disengage; nor may their straps slip more than 1 inch when subjected to an 80-pound pull force. Adjustable leg opening fasteners must also be tested but are subjected to lower loads, a 45-pound pull force, because these fasteners do not carry the same load as fasteners at the shoulders and waist. ASTM F2236-14 requires that when tested, fasteners must not break or disengage, and adjustable elements must not slip more than 1 inch.

Similar to the strap slip requirement in the static and dynamic load testing section of the standard, ASTM also clarified the strap slip section of the fastener strength test section in ASTM F2236-13a. Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 were amended to state: “Each unique fastener, except for leg opening adjustment fasteners as tested per 6.4.2, shall not break or disengage, and adjustable elements in straps shall not slip , in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) . . . .” This amendment allows straps to tighten during testing but not to loosen more than 1 inch, which is the intent of the testing.

Additionally, Note 1 to section 6.4 of the standard provides that the fastener strength and strap retention testing apply only to load-bearing fasteners. ASTM F2236-13 stated: “Fasteners intended to retain items such as, but not limited to, hoods, bibs and toy rings, are exempt from these requirements.” ASTM approved two changes to the language in Note 1 to clarify that several non-load-bearing features, “sleeping hoods” and “head adjustment fasteners,” are included in the list of examples exempted from fastener strength testing when such features are non-load-bearing. Note 1 in section 6.4 of ASTM F2236-14 now provides that: “Fasteners intended to retain items such as, but not limited to, sleeping hoods, head adjustment fasteners, bibs and toy rings, are exempt from these requirements.”

Unbounded Leg Opening —The voluntary standard was updated in 2013 to clarify the unbounded leg opening test procedure to improve test repeatability. ASTM F2236-14 requires that an unbounded leg opening must not allow complete passage of a truncated test cone that is 4.7 inches long, with a major diameter of 4.7 inches and a minor diameter of 3 inches. The standard requires a test cone to be pulled through the leg opening with a 5-pound force for 1 minute.

Marking, Labeling, and Instructional Literature. ASTM F2236-14 requires that each product and its retail package be marked or labeled with certain information and warnings. The warning label requirement was updated in 2013 to address fall and suffocation hazards. ASTM F2236-14 requires that the warning label provide a fall hazard statement addressing that infants can fall through wide leg openings or out of the carrier. The standard requires the following fall-related precautionary statements be addressed on the warning label: Adjust leg openings to fit baby's legs snugly; before each use, make sure all [fasteners/knots] are secure; take special care when leaning or walking; never bend at waist, bend at knees; only use this carrier for children between _ lbs. and _ lbs. Additionally, ASTM F2236-14 requires that a suffocation hazard statement must address the fact that infants under 4 months old can suffocate in the carrier if the child's face is pressed tightly against the caregiver's body. The standard requires that the warning label must also address the following suffocation-related precautionary statements: Do not strap infant too tightly against your body; allow room for head movement; keep infant's face free from obstructions at all times. Products must also contain an informational statement that a child must face toward the caregiver until he or she can hold his or her head upright. All products are required to come with instructional literature on assembly, use, maintenance, cleaning, and required warnings.

ASTM F2236-14 includes an example warning label that identifies more clearly the hazards, the consequences of ignoring the warning, and how to avoid the hazards. The label format was designed to communicate more effectively these warnings to the caregiver (Fig. 1). Manufacturers may alter the rectangular shape of the label to fit on shoulder straps, if the manufacturer chooses not to place label in the occupant space. However, the standard requires that the label be placed in a prominent and conspicuous location, where the caregiver will see the label when placing the soft infant and toddler carrier on their body.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of the rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The NPR proposed that the final rule would become effective 6 months after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register . Although we received one comment requesting a 12-month effective date (comment 8 in section IV.H), the Commission finds that a 6-month effective date is sufficient time to allow manufacturers to come into compliance. Manufacturers whose products are not compliant with the standard will require some product modification; however, any necessary product modification is expected to involve minor changes, such as adding or changing straps or fasteners. Moreover, ASTM F2236-13 was adopted by ASTM in March 2013, and became effective in September 2013. Although the Commission is adopting ASTM F2236-14, this version of the voluntary standard is substantially the same as ASTM F2236-13. Manufacturers that are compliant with ASTM F2236-13 have already made or have begun to make the necessary modifications.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that final rules be reviewed for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that CPSC prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when the Commission promulgates a final rule. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule on small entities and identify any alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the FRFA must contain:

• A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the rule;

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

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

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

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

Soft infant and toddler carriers are generally produced and/or marketed by juvenile product manufacturers and distributors. Several of these firms primarily produce soft infant and toddler carriers, as well as substitute products, such as slings. CPSC Economic Analysis (EC) staff believes that there are at least 54 suppliers of soft infant and toddler carriers to the U.S. market. 6 Thirty-nine domestic firms supply soft infant and toddler carriers to the U.S. market: 23 are domestic manufacturers; eight are domestic importers; and eight firms have unknown supply sources. In addition, 12 foreign firms supply soft infant and toddler carriers to the U.S. market. CPSC has insufficient information available to categorize the remaining three firms. 7

According to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group ( 2006 Baby Products Tracking Study ), 51 percent of new mothers own soft infant and toddler carriers. 8 Approximately 30 percent of soft infant and toddler carriers are handed down or purchased secondhand. 9 Thus, about 70 percent of soft infant and toddler carriers are acquired new. This estimate suggests that approximately 1.5 million soft infant and toddler carriers are sold to households annually (0.51 x 0.70 x 4.1 million births per year). 10

Many soft infant and toddler carriers have expanded their maximum weight limits in recent years to accommodate older children. However, from the lack of incident data involving children older than 2 years, CPSC staff believes that most caregivers would not be comfortable carrying older, heavier children in soft infant and toddler carriers. Based on the incident data, it appears that soft infant and toddler carriers are used during a child's first year, with some caregivers continuing to use these products into the second year. While we do not know the proportion of caregivers who continue to use these products into the second year, we estimated the numbers of soft infant and toddler carriers in use by assuming that a portion of caregivers, e.g., 25-50 percent, will continue to use carriers in the child's second year. Based on data from the 2006 Baby Products Tracking Study, approximately 2.1 million soft infant and toddler carriers are owned by new mothers. Assuming that 25-50 percent of caregivers continue to use soft infant and toddler carriers in the second year, approximately 2.6 million (2.1 million × 0.25 × 2.1 million) to 3.2 million (2.1 million × 0.50 × 2.1 million) households have soft infant and toddler carriers available for use annually. Based on Directorate for Epidemiology staff's estimate of 1,400 injuries treated nationally in emergency departments from 1999 to 2011, an average of about 108 emergency department-treated injuries involve soft infant and toddler carriers annually. 11 Therefore, about 0.34−0.40 emergency department-treated injuries may occur annually for every 10,000 soft infant and toddler carriers available for use.

The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards for nursery products that are substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary standard. Staff recommends adopting the voluntary standard (ASTM F2236-14), without modification.

The requirements of the final rule are set forth above in section V of this preamble, which describes ASTM F2236-14.

Section IV of this preamble contains a summary of the five comments received and the issues raised by the comments.

Two federal rules interact with the soft infant and toddler carrier mandatory standard: (1) Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR part 1112). The regulation at 16 CFR part 1107 requires every manufacturer of a children's product that is subject to a children's product safety rule to certify, based on third party testing, that the product complies with all applicable safety rules. Because soft infant and toddler carriers will be subject to a mandatory children's product safety rule, they will also be subject to the third party testing requirements of 16 CFR part 1107 when the soft infant and toddler carrier mandatory standard becomes effective.

In addition, 16 CFR part 1107 requires the third party testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accredited laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA required the Commission to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies ( i.e., testing laboratories) to test for conformance with each children's product safety rule. The NORs for existing rules are set forth in 16 CFR part 1112. The Commission is finalizing an amendment to 16 CFR part 1112 that establishes the requirements for the accreditation of testing laboratories to test for compliance with the soft infant and toddler carrier final rule.

The FRFA is limited to the 39 domestic firms known to be marketing soft infant and toddler carriers in the United States because U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Under SBA guidelines, a manufacturer of soft infant and toddler carriers is small if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. Based on these guidelines, 32 of the 39 domestic firms supplying soft infant and toddler carriers to the U.S. market are small firms—18 manufacturers, six importers, and eight firms—whose supply source is unknown. Additional unknown small soft infant and toddler carrier suppliers may also operate in the U.S. market.

One purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to evaluate the impact of a regulatory action and determine whether the impact is economically significant. While the SBA gives considerable flexibility in defining “economically significant,” CPSC staff typically uses one percent of gross revenue as the threshold for determining “economic significance.” CPSC staff considers any impact that is one percent or more of gross revenue is considered economically significant. SBA has accepted the one percent of gross revenue threshold and this threshold is also commonly used by agencies in determining economic significance. 12

Small Manufacturers: The expected impact of the final rule on small manufacturers will differ, based on whether manufacturers' soft infant and toddler carriers are already compliant with F2236-13. Although F2236-14 was published in January 2014, firms are still likely to be testing to F2236-13. However, because ASTM F2236-13, ASTM F2236-13a, and ASTM F2236-14 do not contain material differences, manufacturers in compliance with ASTM F2236-13 are likely to continue to comply with the voluntary standard.

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), the major U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product manufacturers and importers, has certified several soft infant and toddler carriers as compliant with the voluntary standard, and other manufacturers have claimed compliance with the voluntary standard. Based on this information, 11 of 18 domestic manufacturers comply with ASTM F2236-13. These 11 firms should not require any modifications to their products and, as such, the firms should not be impacted by incorporation of ASTM F2236-14 as the final rule.

Meeting ASTM F2236-14's requirements could require some modifications for seven of the 18 domestic manufacturers who are believed not to be currently compliant with ASTM F2236-13. Based upon past discussions with firms and Engineering Sciences staff, necessary modifications would likely involve adding or changing straps, fasteners, or fabrics and generally would be less expensive to accomplish than a complete product redesign. Therefore, in most cases, the impact of the final rule is not expected to have a significant effect on products that do not comply with ASTM F2236-13.

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

Based on information from the durable nursery product industry and confidential business information supplied for the development of the third party testing rule, CPSC staff estimates that testing to a single ASTM voluntary standard could cost around $500-$600 per model sample. On average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies two different models of soft infant and toddler carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if third party testing to the requirements in the soft infant and toddler standard is conducted every year on a single sample for each model, third party testing costs associated for each manufacturer would be about $1,000-$1,200 annually. Based on an examination of estimates of firms' revenues from recent Dun & Bradstreet reports, the impact of third party testing is not likely to be economically significant if only one sample per model is required. However, if more than one sample is needed to meet the testing requirements, third party testing costs could have an economically significant impact on some small manufacturers ( i.e., testing costs could be one percent or more of gross revenue). CPSC staff does not know exactly how many samples each manufacturer will need to test to meet the “high degree of assurance” criterion required by 16 CFR part 1107.

Small Importers: Most importers will not experience significant impacts as a result of the final rule. CPSC staff believes that four of the six small importers are compliant with the voluntary standard. The remaining importers may need to find an alternate source of soft infant and toddler carriers if their existing suppliers do not come into compliance with the requirements of the final rule. Alternatively, the firms may discontinue importing soft infant and toddler carriers altogether and perhaps substitute another juvenile product.

As is the case with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, they will experience the associated costs, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. The resulting costs could potentially have a significant impact on a few small importers that must perform the testing themselves, particularly if more than one sample per model is required.

Eight small firms have unknown supply sources, three of which appear to be compliant with ASTM F2236-13 and should not be impacted by the incorporation of ASTM F2236-14 as the mandatory final rule. The remaining five firms may need to make small changes to their products to be compliant with ASTM F2236-14. Due to the nature of the product, the modifications should be limited to changes in straps or fasteners and should not have a significant impact.

One alternative would be to set an effective date for the final rule later than the staff-recommended 6 months, which is generally considered sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance with a durable infant and toddler product rule. Setting a later effective date would allow suppliers additional time to modify and/or develop compliant soft infant and toddler carriers and spread the associated costs over a longer period of time. However, given that the changes to meet the standard are not substantial, CPSC staff believes that 6 months is sufficient.

The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. If our rule has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” the rule will be categorically exempted from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for soft infant and toddler carriers falls within the categorical exemption.

This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR at 20520 through 20521) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. OMB has assigned control number 3041-0162 to this information collection. We did not receive any comment regarding the information collection burden of the proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated manufacturers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated at 54 manufacturers rather than the 39 manufacturers initially estimated in the proposed rule.

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

Our estimate is based on the following:

Section 8.1 of ASTM F2236-14 requires that all soft infant and toddler carrier products and their retail packaging be marked or labeled as follows: the manufacturer, distributor, or seller name, and either the place of business (city, state, mailing address, including zip code), or telephone number, or both; and a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture.

CPSC is aware of 54 firms that supply soft infant and toddler carriers in the U.S. market. For PRA purposes, we assume that all 54 firms use labels on their products and on their packaging already. However, firms might need to make some modifications to their existing labels. We estimate that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each of the 54 firms supplies an average of two different models of soft infant and toddler carriers. Therefore, we estimate the burden hours associated with labels to be 108 hours annually (1 hour × 54 firms × 2 models per firm = 108 hours annually).

We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $27.71 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” September 2013, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, we estimate the annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements in the final rule to be $2,992.68 ($27.71 per hour × 108 hours = $2,992.68). This collection of information does not require operating, maintenance, or capital costs.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this final rule to the OMB.

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

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The final rule for 16 CFR part 1226, “Safety Standard for Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers,” is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of a NOR.

Effective June 10, 2013, the Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which codifies 16 CFR part 1112. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with Section14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The final rule also codifies all of the NORs that the CPSC has published, to date. All new NORs, such as the soft infant and toddler carrier standard, require an amendment to part 1112. Accordingly, the final rule amends part 1112 to include the soft infant and toddler standard, along with the other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs. The final NOR is based on the CPSC's laboratory accreditation requirements on the performance standard set forth in the final rule for the safety standard for soft infant and toddler carriers and the test methods incorporated within this standard.

Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for soft infant and toddler carriers are required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1226, Safety Standard for Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers, included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

A FRFA was conducted as part of the promulgation of the original 16 CFR part 1112 (78 FR 15836, 15855-15858), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories expected to provide such services are those that anticipate receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

Based on similar reasoning, amending the rule to include the NOR for the soft infant and toddler carrier standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the soft infant and toddler carrier standard. Most of these laboratories have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only cost to them would be the cost of adding the soft infant and toddler standard to their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the NOR for the soft infant and toddler carrier standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending part 1112 and adding a new part 1226, as follows:

Background

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Adjustment Act), provides for the regular evaluation of civil monetary penalties to ensure that they continue to maintain their deterrent effect and that penalty amounts due the Federal Government are properly accounted for and collected. On April 26, 1996, section 31001 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, also known as the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Improvement Act), amended the Adjustment Act to provide for more effective tools for government-wide collection of delinquent debt. In particular, section 31001(s)(1) of the Improvement Act amended section 4 of the Adjustment Act to require the head of each agency to “by regulation adjust each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Federal agency” and to “publish each such regulation in the Federal Register ” not later than 180 days after enactment of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and at least every four years thereafter. Subsection (s)(1) also added a new section 7 to the Adjustment Act providing that any increase in a civil monetary penalty made pursuant to that Act shall apply only to violations that occur after the date the increase takes effect. Subsection (s)(2) of the Improvement Act provides that the first adjustment of a civil monetary penalty made pursuant to the amendment in subsection (s)(1) may not exceed 10 percent of such penalty.

In compliance with these statutory requirements, the Department of Justice published a rule on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7066), adjusting the immigration-related civil monetary penalties, and a second rule on August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47099), adjusting the other civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department within its areas of responsibility (codified in 28 CFR parts 36 and 85).

The amounts of the adjustments are determined according to a formula set forth in the Adjustment Act, Public Law 101-410. The statutory formulas for the inflation adjustment calculations are set forth in 28 CFR 85.2, including the applicable “rounder” (or increment) used for calculations based on the amount of the current penalty. For example, the applicable “rounder” for a current $15,000 civil penalty amount is $5,000. This means that there would be no adjustment of the current amount if the raw inflation adjustment calculation shows an increase of less than $2,500, but the civil penalty amount would be increased by the full $5,000 increment if the raw inflation adjustment is above the rounding threshold.

By this rule, the Department of Justice is making adjustments for inflation in the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division. 1 The Department will separately publish a rule adjusting the other civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department.

Several civil monetary penalties were previously adjusted in 1999: civil monetary penalties in the amounts of $55,000 and $110,000 under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(2)(C); civil monetary penalties in the amounts of $11,000 and $27,500 under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 248(c)(2)(B), and civil monetary penalties in the amounts of $55,000 and $110,000 under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(C). However, this rule is also adjusting for the first time the civil monetary penalties under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3), as amended in 2010, and two penalties imposed under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 28 U.S.C. 248(b), which had not previously been adjusted.

The adjustments in the civil monetary penalties under this rule will take effect in 2014. In accordance with the Act, the adjustments made by this rule are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for June of the calendar year preceding the year of adjustment, that is, the amount for June 2013. The inflation factor from June 1999 (166.2), the year of adjustment for the previously-adjusted civil monetary penalties, to June 2013 (233.504) is 40.5%. Applying that factor, and the applicable “rounders,” this rule adjusts previously adjusted civil monetary penalty amounts 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 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-2012-0926 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 May 27, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0926, 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 January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL-9375-4), 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 2F8155) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.368 be amended by revising previously established tolerances for residues of the herbicide S-metolachlor, S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, in or on corn, field, forage at 20 parts per million (ppm); corn, stover at 40 ppm; and corn, sweet, forage at 40 ppm. These tolerances were proposed in order to amend tolerances previously established on these commodities at 6.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the proposed tolerance level for corn, field, forage and has corrected the proposed commodity definition, corn stover, to the following commodity designations: Corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; and corn, sweet, stover. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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 S-metolachlor including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with S-metolachlor follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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.

The existing toxicological database is primarily comprised of studies conducted with metolachlor. However, bridging studies indicate that the metolachlor toxicology database can be used to assess toxicity for S-metolachlor. In subchronic (metolachlor and S-metolachlor) and chronic (metolachlor) toxicity studies in dogs and rats, decreased body weight and body weight gain were the most commonly observed effects. No systemic toxicity was observed when metolachlor was administered dermally. There was no evidence of neurotoxic effects in the available toxicity studies, and there is no evidence of immunotoxicity in the submitted rat immunotoxicity study. Prenatal developmental studies in the rat and rabbit with both metolachlor and S-metolachlor revealed no evidence of a qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in fetal animals. A 2-generation reproduction study with metolachlor in rats showed no evidence of parental or reproductive toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.

Metolachlor has been evaluated for carcinogenic effects in the mouse and the rat. Metolachlor did not cause an increase in tumors of any kind in mice. In rats, metolachlor caused an increase in benign liver tumors in rats, but this increase was seen only at the highest dose tested and was statistically significant compared to controls only in females. There was no evidence of mutagenic or cytogenetic effects in vivo or in vitro. Based on this evidence, EPA has concluded that metolachlor does not have a common mechanism of carcinogenicity with acetochlor and alachlor, compounds that are structurally similar to metolachlor. Taking into account the qualitatively weak evidence on carcinogenic effects and the fact that the increase in benign tumors in female rats occurs at a dose 1,500 times the chronic reference dose (cRfD), EPA has concluded that the cRfD is protective of any potential cancer effect.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by S-metolachlor 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: “S-Metolachlor, PP#2F8115. Human Health Risk Assessment for the petition for higher tolerances on Corn, field, forage; Corn, sweet, forage; and Corn stover” at pp. 34-46 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0926.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for S-metolachlor used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of September 17, 2010 (75 FR 56897, p. 56899) (FRL-8842-3).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to S-metolachlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing S-metolachlor tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368. Both the acute and chronic analyses assume tolerance-level residues on all crops with established, pending, or proposed tolerances for metolachlor and/or S-metolachlor. In cases where separate tolerance listings occur for both metolachlor and S-metolachlor on the same commodity, the higher value of the two is used in the analyses. Therefore, EPA assessed dietary exposures from S-metolachlor 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. Such effects were identified for S-metolachlor. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all uses, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities, and default processing factors.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's Nationwide CSFII, 1994-1996 and 1998. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all uses, 100 PCT for all commodities, and default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a non-linear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to S-metolachlor. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for S-metolachlor. 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 S-metolachlor in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of S-metolachlor. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, and the USGA National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program monitoring data, the Agency calculated conservative estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of S-metolachlor and metolachlor originating from ground water and surface water sources. EDWCs for metolachlor and S-metolachlor were calculated for both the parent compound, as well as the ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) and oxanilic acid (OA) degradates.

For surface water, PRZM/EXAMS and FIRST Version1.1.1 models were used for EDWCs for the parent S-metolachlor and the ESA and OA degradates, respectively. The SCI-GROW model was used to predict the maximum acute and chronic concentrations present in shallow groundwater. Current NAWQA monitoring data were also used to determine EDWCs. Based on monitoring and modeling data, total EDWCs for acute and chronic exposures from surface water are 219 parts per billion (ppb) and 119 ppb, respectively. Groundwater EDWCs are 126 ppb for acute and chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 219 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 126 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). S-metolachlor is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential lawns or turf by professional applicators. S-metolachlor is labeled for use on commercial (sod farm) and residential warm-season turf grasses and other non-crop land including golf courses, sports fields, and ornamental gardens. Since S-metolachlor is not registered for homeowner purchase or use, the only potential short-term residential risk scenario anticipated is postapplication hand-to-mouth exposure of children playing on treated lawns. S-metolachlor incidental oral exposure is assumed to include hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and incidental soil ingestion exposures. No intermediate-term risk scenarios are anticipated for the existing and proposed uses of S-metolachlor.

Small children are the population group of concern. Although the type of site that S-metolachlor may be used on varies from golf courses to ornamental gardens, the scenario chosen for risk assessment (residential turf use) represents what the Agency considers the likely upper-end of possible exposure. 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 S-metolachlor to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and S-metolachlor does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that S-metolachlor 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 Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increase in susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit or in the reproductive toxicity studies in the rat. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose levels the same or greater than those causing maternal or parental toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, there is not a concern for increased qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to metolachlor or S-metolachlor.

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 S-metolachlor is complete to evaluate the safety of the tolerance.

The last rule for S-metolachlor, published in the Federal Register of August 15, 2012 (77 FR 48902) (FRL-9356-9), noted that immunotoxicity and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were required. However, since that time, EPA has reviewed the available hazard and exposure information for S-metolachlor and metolachlor and has determined that based on the weight of the evidence approach the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are no longer required. Additionally, an immunotoxicity study has been submitted to EPA since the last published rule. No signs of immunotoxicity were noted in this study at any dose level.

ii. There is no indication that S-metolachlor is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that S-metolachlor 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 dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to S-metolachlor in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by S-metolachlor.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to S-metolachlor will occupy 1.5% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to S-metolachlor from food and water will utilize 11.6% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year 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 S-metolachlor is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). S-metolachlor is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to S-metolachlor.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 680 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for S-metolachlor is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, S-metolachlor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for S-metolachlor.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the cRfD is protective of cancer effects. As previously discussed, the chronic risk assessment indicated that aggregate exposure to S-metolachlor does not pose a risk of concern.

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

Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the tolerance expression, including: a gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorous detector (GC/NPD) method (Method I) for determining residues in or on crop commodities; and a gas chromatography with mass spectroscopy detector (GC/MSD) method (Method II) for determining residues in livestock commodities.

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.

The Codex has not established MRLs for S-metolachlor.

Based on the available forage residue data submitted with the petition, EPA revised the proposed tolerance on corn, field, forage from 20 ppm to 40 ppm. The available data indicate that 20 ppm would not be sufficient to cover likely residues in corn, field, forage at approved application rates; a tolerance at 40 ppm is supported by the available residue data. Additionally, the proposed tolerance for corn stover has been revised to the following commodity entries: Corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; and corn, sweet, stover. This revision was made in order to accurately capture the correct commodity terminology for regulated corn stover commodities.

Therefore, tolerances are amended for residues of S-metolachlor, S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, from 6.0 ppm to 40 ppm in or on the following commodities: Corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, stover.

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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

EPA Region 5 is publishing this Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Deletion of Sites on the National Priorities List, (49 FR 37070), 09/21/1984. As described in 300.425(e) (3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 28, 2014. Along with this Direct Final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the “ Proposed Rules ” section of the Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA may conduct such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the State of Wisconsin prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register .

(2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the State, through the WDNR, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, “Eau Claire Leader Telegram”. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site from the NPL.

The Eau Claire Municipal Well Field (ECMWF) site (CERCLIS ID: WID980820054) is located in Chippewa County in the Chippewa River Valley, east of the Chippewa River and approximately 2.5 miles west of the National Presto Industries (NPI) site. The ECMWF site consists of 15 municipal groundwater wells in two adjoining well fields (five in the north well field and ten in the south) that provide drinking water to approximately 60,000 residential and commercial users. All municipal wells are installed in the glacial outwash sand and gravel aquifer. In addition to these municipal wells, a number of private wells previously drew drinking water from this sand and gravel aquifer. The sand and gravel aquifer is hydraulically connected to an underlying sandstone aquifer, which is not used extensively in the area due to its low hydraulic conductivity and the water's poor aesthetic qualities. The well field is about a mile long and trends generally in a north-south direction. The ECMWF site has been used as a well field by the city for over the past 70 years. According to city personnel, prior to that time it was forested land. Current land use in the surrounding area is primarily residential, with a small park to the south and the Eau Claire airport located about one-quarter mile east of the northern portion of the city well field. It is anticipated that these land uses will continue into the foreseeable future.

In March 1981, as part of the U.S. EPA Groundwater Supply Survey, the WDNR tested the Eau Claire municipal water supply for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) were detected in samples collected from the north well field. The WDNR informed the city of Eau Claire that the concentrations for each of the VOCs detected were below Wisconsin groundwater standards. In addition to monitoring individual municipal production wells, the city began testing private residential wells located immediately northeast of the well field. VOCs were subsequently detected in several of the residential wells sampled at levels above Wisconsin groundwater standards.

EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the ECMWF site in October 1984. Based on groundwater monitoring data from private wells and monitoring wells installed as part of the field investigation, the ECMWF RI identified two distinct plumes of contamination at the site, separated by a gap of approximately 1,700 feet at the Eau Claire County Airport. The ECMWF RI did not confirm the source of the groundwater contamination at the well field but suggested that the nearby National Presto Industries (NPI) property (which later became a Superfund site) could be a potential source of the groundwater contamination at the ECMWF site. Data generated during the NPI RI clearly established that waste disposal areas at the NPI site were the source of TCE contamination at the ECMWF site, and indeed, continued to release contaminants to groundwater. A separate action was taken at NPI and cleanup at the NPI site is still ongoing.

On June 10, 1985, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that selected a packed column air stripper as an Initial Remedial Measure (IRM) to address contamination at the ECMWF site. During the first month of operation (August 1987), influent to the air strippers was sampled and analyzed weekly for VOCs. Influent and effluent have been tested monthly thereafter. Influent and effluent samples are analyzed for VOCs according to modified Method 601 of 40 CFR part 136 by the city of Eau Claire.

Following the completion of the RI/FS, EPA issued the final ROD for the ECMWF site on March 31, 1988. The major components of the selected remedy were:

• Continued treatment of contaminated municipal water with the air stripper constructed as the IRM;

• provision of municipal water from the city of Eau Claire to private well users within or near the two plumes of groundwater contamination identified during the RI;

• installation of groundwater extraction wells in one of the two plumes of contamination; and

• discharge of untreated groundwater from extraction wells to the Chippewa River. WDNR concurred with the remedy selected by EPA for the ECMWF site. The remedies for the ECMWF site were developed to meet the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):

• Prevent human ingestion of contaminated groundwater,

• Prevent inhalation of contaminants from the groundwater, and

• Restore the contaminated aquifer to water quality objectives that are protective of beneficial use within a reasonable timeframe.

After EPA issued the ECMWF site final ROD, WDNR determined that the discharge of untreated groundwater from the proposed extraction wells into the Chippewa River would not comply with Wisconsin Statute, Chapter 283, Pollution Discharge Elimination. As a result, two of the components of the ECMWF site remedy, installation of extraction wells and the discharge of untreated water, were never fully implemented. The lack of extraction wells, however, did not fundamentally alter the selected ECMWF remedy. EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in 2008 to document that these measures were not implemented and would not be implemented in the future.

The 1988 ROD states that “EPA will clean up the groundwater to non-detect for these compounds and continue to pump and treat for a period of time beyond the non-detect to assure that the target compound limits (TCLs) have been reached.” The target cumulative carcinogenic risk for the site was set at 1 × 10 -6 excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) and apportioned across several of the site's VOC groundwater contaminants. In order to provide the desired protectiveness, the TCLs needed to be lower than federal drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)).

EPA and WDNR reviewed the cleanup goals upon conclusion of the 2007 Five-Year Review. The 1988 ROD had developed TCLs as groundwater cleanup goals at the ECMWF site. However, in 1985 Wisconsin had promulgated Groundwater Quality regulations in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 140 (NR 140). An ESD was signed on December 23, 2009, to update the groundwater cleanup goals to incorporate NR 140. NR 140 provides two types of standards that are to be followed. One is the Preventive Action Limits (PALs) and the other is the Enforcement Standards (ES). WDNR concurred with the ESD which adopted enforcement standards as the groundwater cleanup goal.

On behalf of EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of the air stripper in June 1987 and the system became operational in August 1987. The city of Eau Claire operates the air stripper as a part of its drinking water distribution operations. The air stripper has been in constant operation since completion of the interim remedial action in 1987. A permanent municipal water supply has been provided to affected private well owners in the city of Eau Claire, and a permanent municipal water supply was constructed and is operating in the Town of Hallie which provides its residents with drinking water.

On April 25, 1989, EPA issued a Section 106 Administrative Order to the NPI PRPs to execute remedial action tasks consistent with the ECMWF final ROD and the data generated in the NPI RI. These activities included implementation of a temporary bottled water distribution program for those in the affected area in and adjacent to the redefined Plume 2. NPI was also required to conduct a Phased Feasibility Study (PFS) to identify and reevaluate options for a permanent alternate drinking water supply for the affected area. To ensure consistency with the ECMWF final ROD, bottled water was to be made available to all private well users in the affected area until a permanent and uncontaminated drinking water supply was fully implemented and operational.

On August 1, 1990, EPA issued a ROD for the NPI site selecting a permanent drinking water supply for the affected area in and around the redefined Plume 2. Under this ROD, the city of Eau Claire would extend its municipal service to those portions of the affected area which had been annexed to the city. The remaining portions of the affected area were to be serviced by a newly created Hallie Sanitary District (District).

The city of Eau Claire hookups were completed by November 1991. The first service connections to the District were completed in December 1991 and by mid-summer 1992 the District was fully operational and servicing the affected area within the Town of Hallie.

EPA conducted a pre-certification inspection of the District on August 19, 1992. Upon completion of the certification process by the Agency and satisfaction of the terms of the Administrative Order, the District assumed full control and responsibility, including operation and maintenance, of its drinking water system.

Remediation of off-site groundwater, including Plume 1-2 which migrated from the NPI site to the ECMWF site, was addressed in the final FS for the NPI site in conjunction with remediation of on-site source areas in the southwest corner of the NPI site. NPI also implemented an interim action for on-site plume containment pursuant to a third Section 106 Administrative Order issued to NPI on July 2, 1992. This action was designed to be consistent with the final cleanup action for the NPI site by preventing the off-site movement of contaminated groundwater through extraction and treatment. This alternative was selected in an Interim Action ROD issued for the NPI site by EPA on September 30, 1992.

The city of Eau Claire has annexed and extended municipal water service to private well owners in the area that could have been subject to impacts from the contaminated groundwater originating from the NPI site. NPI paid for the construction of two air stripping towers at the ECMWF and continues to pay for their operation. The purpose of the towers is to remove the very low concentrations, even below federal drinking water standards, of volatile organic compounds in the groundwater withdrawn by the city wells and to ensure a safe drinking water supply for the city. These engineered controls appear to be effective in their goal of protecting human health and the environment.

Institutional Controls (ICs) were required at the ECMWF site in order to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy. Compliance with ICs is required to assure long-term protectiveness for any areas that do not allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

The ROD for the ECMWF site did not identify the need for ICs. However, the 1996 ROD for NPI acknowledges that ICs are required to ensure protectiveness of the final site-wide remedy until Plume 1-2, which impacts the ECMWF, meets the groundwater cleanup goals. Residences in the affected area who have received municipal water are still allowed to use private wells for other purposes, such as irrigation and car washing as long as there is no connection to indoor plumbing. To use these private wells, property owners must submit applications for annual permits to either the City of Eau Claire's Health Department or the Hallie Sanitary District.

The City of Eau Claire (City), Village of Lake Hallie (formerly known as the Town of Hallie), and Chippewa County have all passed ordinances to protect citizens from impacted groundwater. The City has an ordinance that bans cross connections between private water supply wells and the municipal supply. The City has also annexed properties that are within and near the identified boundaries of the NPI plume(s) in Chippewa County and provided those properties with municipal water. The City recently enacted an ordinance that restricts the construction of new private water supply wells within the City, as well as requiring the abandonment of existing supply wells. The WDNR has promulgated Chapters NR 809 and NR 811 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, which regulate safe drinking water and the design and operation of municipal water systems, respectively. The key part of this code, as it pertains to ECMWF site, is its prohibition against cross connections and its requirement of adequate separation of potable wells from sources of contamination.

The ordinances and administrative codes enacted by the local municipalities, counties, and the state provide a strong and effective framework for protection of the local citizens against consumption of contaminated groundwater from NPI and ECMWF until the cleanup goals are attained in all plumes.

Recent data indicates that the levels of TCE in Plume 1-2 have declined and are meeting the Wisconsin enforcement standard of 5 ppb, except for 5 groundwater monitoring wells associated with the NPI site, which exceed the enforcement standard. One of these groundwater monitoring wells is located on the NPI site property and is significantly above the enforcement standard; two groundwater monitoring wells are west of the NPI site along North Hastings Way and measures TCE between 5-6 ppb; and two groundwater monitoring wells located at and near the airport measure TCE between 5-6 ppb.

Groundwater monitoring wells on the ECMWF site, as well as the production wells, all show TCE below the enforcement standard of 5 ppb. A review of the monthly production well data by ECMWF for wells 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 shows that the TCE has not been detected except for well 19. This well does detect TCE consistently, but it is below the enforcement standard of 5 ppb. The blended production well water entering the air stripper is non-detect for any VOCs. The detection limit used by the city in its analyses is 0.7 ppb TCE. As a result, the implemented remedy at the ECMWF site has achieved the degree of cleanup as specified in the decision documents for all pathways of exposure.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements outlined in the O&M Plan for the IRM were: (1) Routine maintenance of the air stripper as described in the manufacturer's manual; and (2) sampling and analysis requirements of stripper influent and effluent, as previously discussed. TCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene (PCE) are monitored regularly by the city of Eau Claire to ensure compliance with Wisconsin Enforcement Standards and the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) for drinking water.

EPA conducted four five-year reviews at this site; the last report was dated July 17, 2012. EPA, in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), determined that the cleanup remedy at the ECMWF site is protective of human health and the environment because cleanup standards have been met at the site. Additionally, exposure pathways from the NPI site that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled through the use of ICs. EPA has also determined that the air strippers at ECMWF can be taken off-line as the groundwater entering the city's well field has met the cleanup standards for over 5 years and is not expected to exceed the standards in the future. The city of Eau Claire has chosen to keep the air strippers on-line in the short term, although they may turn off the air strippers at a future date. Since unlimited use/unrestricted exposure has been met at the ECMWF site, future five-year reviews are not required.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion of this site from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories and at www.regulations.gov.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Wisconsin, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate.

EPA, with concurrence from the State of Wisconsin through the WDNR, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 28, 2014. If adverse comments are received during the comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

This final rule amends the DFARS as follows:

1. Correct 209.105-1(1) conform to the implementation of the System for Award Management (SAM).

2. Correct 225.7003-3 to update cross-references to DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information.

3. Correct 252.204-7007(d)(2) to remove obsolete text and update the clause date.

4. Correct 252.209-7004 to conform to the System for Award Management (SAM) and update the clause date.

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 209, 225, and 252 are amended as follows:

Section 866 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), enacted on January 7, 2011, authorized the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of acquiring military-purpose nondevelopmental items in accordance with the streamlined procedures of the pilot program. Under this pilot program, DoD may enter into contracts with nontraditional defense contractors for the purpose of enabling DoD to acquire items that otherwise might not have been available to DoD, assist DoD in the rapid acquisition and fielding of capabilities needed to meet urgent operational needs, and protect the interests of the United States in paying fair and reasonable prices for the item or items acquired.

This pilot program is designed to test whether the streamlined procedures, similar to those available for commercial items, can serve as an effective incentive for nontraditional defense contractors to (1) channel investment and innovation into areas that are useful to DoD and (2) provide items developed exclusively at private expense to meet validated military requirements.

This final rule amends DFARS subpart 212.71, Pilot Program for Acquisition of Military-Purpose Nondevelopmental Items, to implement section 814, Extension of Pilot Program of Military Purpose Nondevelomental Items, of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014. This rule extends the authority for this pilot program from January 6, 2016, to December 31, 2019.

“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Publication for public comment is not required because the rule does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors as it merely extends the expiration date of an existing pilot program pursuant to statutory directive.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 and does not require publication for public comment.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 212 is amended as follows:

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 73475 on December 6, 2013, to amend the presentation of the DFARS part 235 clause with its alternate and their prescriptions. This final rule addresses the single clause affected, which is 252.235-7003, Frequency Authorization, and its alternate.

One public comment was received; however it was not related to the proposed rule and therefore not considered in drafting the final rule. Minor editorial changes were made to standardize language used in the final rule for the clause prescriptions and prefaces in order to provide uniform arrangement in the regulations.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows.

This final rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to create prescriptions for the basic version and the alternate of a DFARS part 235 solicitation and contract clause and to include the full text of the alternate clause.

The public did not raise any issues in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not submit any comments in response to the rule.

Potential offerors, including small businesses, may be affected by this rule by seeing an unfamiliar format for clause alternates in solicitations and contracts issued by DoD contracting activities. According to the Federal Procurement Data System, in fiscal year 2012, DoD made approximately 270,000 contract awards (not including modification and orders) that exceeded the micro-purchase threshold, of which approximately 180,000 (67%) were awarded to small businesses. It is unknown how many of these contracts were awarded that included an alternate to a DFARS provision or clause.

Nothing substantive will change in solicitations or contracts for potential offerors, and only the appearance of how clause alternates are presented in the solicitations and contracts will be changed. This rule may result in potential offerors, including small businesses, expending more time to become familiar with and to understand the new format of the clause alternates in full text contained in contracts issued by any DoD contracting activity. The rule also anticipates saving contractors time by making all paragraph substitutions from the basic version of the clause, and not requiring the contractors to read inapplicable paragraphs contained in the basic version of the clause. The overall burden caused by this rule is expected to be negligible and will not be any greater on small businesses than it is on large businesses.

This rule does not add any new information collection requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 235 and 252 are amended as follows:

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 48407 on August 8, 2013, to revise the presentation of the DFARS part 246 clause with alternates and their prescriptions.

This final rule addresses the single DFARS part 246 clause that has alternates. The affected clause is 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data, with two alternates. The naming convention results in new clause titles: Warranty of Data—Basic, Warranty of Data—Alternate I, and Warranty of Data—Alternate II.

No public comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule. Minor editorial changes were made in the final rule to standardize language used for the clause prescriptions and prefaces to provide uniform arrangement in the regulations.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows.

This final rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to (1) create an umbrella prescription for the elements common to the basic clause and both alternates, (2) create a specific prescription for the basic clause and each alternate clause that address only the requirements for their use of the alternate so that it is clear which is appropriate in a specific procurement, and (3) include the full text of the clause alternate. The inclusion of the full text of the alternate clause makes the terms clearer to offerors, and contractors, as well as to DoD contracting officers. The prescriptions are not revised in any way to change when the clause is applicable to offerors, contractors, or subcontractors.

No comments were received from the public in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not submit any comments in response to the rule.

Potential offerors, including small businesses, may be affected by this rule by seeing an unfamiliar format for clause alternates in solicitations and contracts issued by DoD contracting activities. According to the Federal Procurement Data System, in Fiscal Year 2012, DoD made approximately 270,000 contract awards (not including modification and orders) that exceeded the micro-purchase threshold, of which approximately 180,000 (67%) were awarded to small businesses. It is unknown how many of these contracts were awarded that included an alternate to a DFARS provision or clause. Nothing substantive will change in solicitations or contracts for potential offerors, and only the appearance of how clause alternates are presented in the solicitations and contracts will be changed. This rule may result in potential offerors, including small businesses, expending more time to become familiar with and to understand the new format of the clause alternates in full text contained in contracts issued by any DoD contracting activity. The rule also anticipates saving contractors time by making all paragraph substitutions from the basic version of the clause, and not requiring the contractors to read inapplicable paragraphs contained in the basic version of the clause where alternates are also included in the solicitations and contracts. The overall burden caused by this rule is expected to be negligible and will not be any greater on small businesses than it is on large businesses.

This rule does not add any new information collection requirements. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule. This rule should not result in any significant economic impact on small entities.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 246 and 252 are amended as follows: