As provided under the 2014 Farm Bill, this interim rule redesignates the statutory authority for the program from section 375 (7 U.S.C. 2008j) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to section 210 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627). In addition, the definition of “Act” is amended under section 63.1 to be consistent with the redesignated statutory authority, and amends the regulations by increasing the administrative cap for the use of the fund from 3 percent to 10 percent.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.

This interim final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this interim final rule would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal Governments and would not have significant tribal implications.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have a retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule would not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency is required to examine the impact of regulatory actions on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the RFA, AMS has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory action to the scale of businesses subject to such action in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service's February 2013 publication of “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations” estimated that in 2012 the number of operations in the United States with sheep and goats totaled approximately 79,500 and 149,500, respectively and would be classified as small entities.

The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of no more than $7 million. Under these definitions, the majority of the producers that will be affected by this rule are considered small entities.

The purpose of NSIIC is to: (1) Promote strategic development activities and collaborative efforts by private and State entities to maximize the impact of Federal assistance to strengthen and enhance the production and marketing of sheep or goat products in the United States; (2) Optimize the use of available human capital and resources within the sheep or goat industries; (3) Provide assistance to meet the needs of the sheep or goat industry for infrastructure development, business development, production, resource development, and market and environmental research; (4) Advance activities that empower and build the capacity of the U.S. sheep or goat industry to design unique responses to the special needs of the sheep or goat industries on both a regional and national basis; and (5) Adopt flexible and innovative approaches to solving the long-term needs of the United States sheep or goat industry.

A Board of Directors (Board) manages and is responsible for the general supervision of the structure of the NSIIC, with oversight from USDA. The Board is comprised of seven voting members, of whom four would be active producers of sheep or goats in the United States, two would have expertise in finance and management, and one would have expertise in lamb, wool, goat, or goat product marketing. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) appoints the voting members from nominations submitted by eligible organizations. There are also two non-voting members on the Board, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics.

As provided under the 2014 Farm Bill, AMS is amending NSIIC regulations at 7 CFR part 63. This interim rule redesignates (1) the statutory authority from section 375 (7 U.S.C. 2008j) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), (2) amends the definition of the Act under section 63.1 consistent with the redesignated statutory authority, and (3) amends the regulations by increasing the administrative cap for the use of the fund from 3 percent to 10 percent. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. AMS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the RFA.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in 7 CFR part 63 were previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093. No additions have been made to the PRA.

The NSIIC was initially authorized under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act). The Act, as amended, was passed as part of the 1996 Farm Bill (Pub. Law 104-127). The initial legislation included a provision that privatized the NSIIC 10 years after its ratification or once the full appropriation of $50 million was disbursed. Subsequently, the NSIIC was privatized on September 30, 2006 (72 FR 28945).

In 2008, the NSIIC was re-established under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246), also known as the 2008 Farm Bill. Section 11009 of the 2008 Farm Bill repealed the requirement in section 375(e)(6) of the Act to privatize the NSIIC. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided for $1,000,000 in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2008 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the NSIIC to remain available until expended, as well as authorization for appropriations in the amount of $10 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. In July 2010, USDA promulgated rules and regulations establishing the NSIIC, consistent with the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (75 FR 43031). The rule established the NSIIC and a Board that will manage and be responsible for the general supervision of the activities of the NSIIC, with oversight from the USDA. The NSIIC is authorized to use funds to make grants to eligible entities in accordance with a strategic plan.

The authorizing legislation established in the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) the NSIIC Revolving Fund (Fund). The Fund was available to the NSIIC, without fiscal year limitation, to carry out the authorized programs and activities of the NSIIC. The law provides authority for amounts in the Fund to be used for direct loans, loan guarantees, cooperative agreements, equity interests, investments, repayable grants, and grants to eligible entities, either directly or through an intermediary, in accordance with a strategic plan submitted by the NSIIC to the Secretary. In accordance with the 2014 Farm Bill, AMS is amending the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center regulations at 7 CFR part 63 as provided for herein.

The management of the NSIIC is vested in a Board that is appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary reviews and monitors compliance of the Board as provided under the Act and rules and regulations. The Board is composed of seven voting members, of whom four would be active producers of sheep or goats in the United States, two would have expertise in finance and management, and one would have expertise in lamb, wool, goat, or goat product marketing. The Board also includes two non-voting members, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics. The Secretary appoints the voting members from nominations submitted by eligible organizations. A member's term of office shall be 3 years with a maximum of two terms. Board members initially served staggered terms of 1, 2, or 3 years, as determined by the Secretary. Only national organizations that (1) consist primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the United States and (2) have the primary interest of sheep or goat production in the United States can make nominations to the Board.

The Board meets not less than once each fiscal year. Board members do not receive compensation for serving on the Board, but are reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses. The Board is responsible for general supervision of the NSIIC; review of any contract and grant to be made or entered into by the NSIIC and any financial assistance provided to the NSIIC; making final decision—by majority vote—on whether or not to provide grants to an eligible entity; and developing and establishing a budget plan and long-term operating plan to carry out the goals of the NSIIC.

The authorizing legislation establishes in the United States Treasury, the NSIIC Fund. The Fund is available to the NSIIC, without fiscal year limitation, to carry out the authorized programs and activities of the NSIIC. The law provides authority for amounts in the Fund to be used to carry out authorized program activities of the NSIIC.

The current program authorizes a grant-only program administered by the NSIIC Board. Based on funding, the Board announces that proposals may be submitted to the Board for consideration from eligible entities. The Board determines how funds are allocated. Proposals submitted to the Board must be consistent with the purpose of the NSIIC.

As provided under 2014 Farm Bill, the AMS is amending the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center regulations at 7 CFR Part 63. This interim rule redesignates (1) the statutory authority from section 375 (7 U.S.C. 2008j) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), (2) amends the definition of the Act under section 63.1 consistent with the redesignated statutory authority, and (3) amends the regulations by increasing the administrative cap for the use of the funds from 3 percent to 10 percent.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) These changes need to be in effect as soon as possible because the next available funding opportunities are scheduled to begin in July; and (2) the amendments are necessary to implement provision under the 2014 Farm Bill. For these same reasons a 30-day comment period is deemed appropriate.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter I of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the program impacted by this action is 10.767, Intermediary Relending Program.

The IRP is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Rural Development has conducted intergovernmental consultation in the manner delineated in RD Instruction 1940-J, “Intergovernmental Review of Rural Development Programs and Activities,” and in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted, (2) no retroactive effect will be given this rule, and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with the regulations of the Agency at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule unless those regulations specifically allow bringing suit at an earlier time.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” Rural Development has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Rural Development must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of UMRA generally requires Rural Development to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Rural Development has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the action will not affect a significant number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601). Rural Development made this determination based on the fact that this regulation only impacts those who choose to participate in the program. Small entity applicants will not be impacted to a greater extent than large entity applicants. Therefore, a regulatory impact analysis was not performed.

It has been determined under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. Additionally, on April 17, 2013, Rural Development focused its quarterly webinar and teleconference based Tribal Consultation on its Rural Business Revolving Loan Fund Programs, including the IRP. Neither adverse nor material comments were received regarding the IRP during, or as a result of, that event. Tribal Consultation inquiries and comments should be directed to Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at aian@wdc.usda.gov or (720) 544-2911.

This rule does not revise or impose any new information collection or recordkeeping requirements.

Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The amendments in this rule immediately allow the Agency to comply with the Agricultural Act of 2014, which incorporates the IRP into the Con Act and consequently to utilize the Con Act “rural and rural area” definition for the program. Additionally, the amendments will immediately address the OIG audit findings conducted in fiscal year 2010 involving several issues that require strengthening the Agency's oversight controls of the IRP program. Lastly, the Agency is also removing provisions for RDLF because there are no longer any active RDLF accounts.

If RBS receives a significant adverse comment on a provision of this rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that that provision will not take effect. The rule provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding a significant adverse comment on any other provision, unless we determine that it would not be appropriate to do so.

For reasons set forth in this preamble, chapters XVIII and XLII, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, are amended as follows:

The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). On April 23, 2014 the Board published for comment in the Federal Register its Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule, 79 FR 22596. No comments were received in response to that notice, and the Board is now establishing the Fee Schedule.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. The previous Fee Schedule Update went into effect on July 23, 2012. 77 FR 41258.

Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:

On October 2, 2013, SBA published a final rule to implement provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 pertaining to small business contracting procedures. 78 FR 61114. As discussed in detail below, the rule contained inadvertent errors in the instructions for sections 125.6 and 127.503, which affected the final regulatory text for those sections.

In § 125.6, SBA intended to amend paragraph (a) by revising the introductory text only. However, the final rule contained an instruction to revise paragraph (a). As a result, the final rule inadvertently removed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4). SBA is correcting § 125.6 by reinserting these paragraphs.

In § 127.503, SBA intended to remove paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2), respectively. However, the rule mistakenly instructed to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2). As a result of this erroneous instruction, paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) were not redesignated and are currently duplicates of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2). SBA is correcting this duplication in § 127.503 by removing paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3).

Accordingly, 13 CFR Parts 125 and 127 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain airplanes originally manufactured by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company for the military as Model P-3A or P3A airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3341). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the existing maintenance program must be revised to address fatigue cracking of the airplane. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The single commenter, Lockheed Martin (Lockheed) did not request a change to the NPRM (79 FR 3341, January 21, 2014).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, 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 (79 FR 3341, January 21, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 3341, January 21, 2014).

We estimate that this AD affects 8 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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by reports of smoke or flames in the passenger cabin of various transport category airplanes related to the wiring for the passenger cabin IFE system, cabin lighting, and passenger seats. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27310). The NPRM proposed to require installing wiring and making changes to certain ELMS panels and other concurrent requirements. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flightcrew is able to turn off electrical power to the IFE systems and other non-essential electrical systems through one or two switches in the flight deck in the event of smoke or flames. In the event of smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin, the flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential electrical systems could result in the inability to control smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 27310, May 10, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment. United Airlines and Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) supported the NPRM.

American Airlines (AA) requested that we add 200 work-hours to the total labor costs specified in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM (78 FR 27310, May 10, 2013). AA stated that the costs of compliance specified in the NPRM include the work-hours specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010, but those work-hours do not take into account the work-hours for making changes to certain ELMS panels specified in the concurrent service bulletins.

We acknowledge that we underestimated the work-hours for completing the installation of wiring and changing the ELMS panel wiring in the NPRM (78 FR 27310, May 10, 2013). We have added 200 work-hours to the Costs of Compliance of this final rule to account for the work-hours for making changes to certain ELMS panels.

AA requested that we allow use of later revisions of certain ELMS service information instead of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010. AA stated that revised ELMS service information has been released since publication of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010.

We do not agree. Allowing a reference to “a later revision” of a specific service document violates Office of the Federal Register policies for approving materials incorporated by reference.

However, we have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 4, dated January 8, 2014, which contains the appropriate service information. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule to use later revisions of the ELMS service information. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 4, dated January 8, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information. We have given credit for Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010, in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

AA requested that we allow the use of an operator's equivalent procedure to mark the applicable service bulletin number on the panel, rather than using the labels in the General Electric (GE) kits as specified. AA stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010, specifies installing a label of the service bulletin number on the ELMS power panels. AA stated that the labels that are in the GE kits have a shelf life that expires prior to the compliance time of 60 months.

We agree that an operator's equivalent procedure may safely and effectively be used to indelibly mark the applicable service bulletin number on the panels in place of the labels. We have revised paragraph (g) of this final rule accordingly. We have also added Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD to specify that additional guidance on indelibly marking the panel can be found in Boeing Process Specification BAC5307.

Japan Air Lines (JAL) requested that we allow certain modifications of the repair kits, which JAL has proposed to Boeing and Smiths Aerospace Actuation Systems to address problems with the Smiths Aerospace Actuation Systems repair kits. JAL stated that problems with the repair kits include a certain electrical wire being too short, omission of certain other wires, inclusion of unshielded wires rather than shielded wires, inability to install a certain relay bracket, and inclusion of an incorrect relay part number.

We disagree with the request to allow modifications of repair kits in this final rule. Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 4, dated January 8, 2014, is the latest service information available for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this final rule. We do not consider it appropriate to include various provisions in an AD applicable only to individual airplanes or to a single operator's configuration or use of an airplane. However, any person may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Boeing requested that we add alternative ELMS software to the NPRM (78 FR 27310, May 10, 2013). Boeing and JAL pointed out that new ELMS software is required in order to be compliant with the requirements of AD 2011-09-15, Amendment 39-16677 (76 FR 24345, May 2, 2011). Boeing and JAL stated that AD 2011-09-15 requires, among other actions, installing new ELMS software. Note 2 of AD 2011-09-15 specifies that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0039, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010, is an additional source of guidance for installing the new ELMS software. Boeing and JAL stated that, if ELMS software is required to be installed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0087, Revision 2, dated August 16, 2007, as proposed in the NPRM, a conflict with the requirements of AD 2011-09-15 will be created.

We agree to allow the option of installing ELMS software using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0039, dated June 13, 2008; Revision 1, dated January 8, 2009; or Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010. We have revised paragraph (h)(5) of this final rule to add a reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0039, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010. We have also revised paragraph (i)(5) of this final rule to provide credit for ELMS software installations done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0039, dated June 13, 2008; or Revision 1, dated January 8, 2009.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 27310, May 10, 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 27310, May 10, 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 59 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 November 25, 2013, at 78 FR 70242, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC225LP helicopters with a tangential gearbox, part number 200181 or 704A34112012. The NPRM proposed to require measuring the operating load of the cockpit fuel shut-off controls and replacing the tangential gearbox if the operating load threshold is exceeded. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent the jamming of the controls so that a pilot can shut down an engine during an engine fire or during an emergency landing.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0098-E, dated April 24, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC 225 LP helicopters. EASA advises that during maintenance on a helicopter, the LH side of the cockpit's emergency shutdown controls were reported jammed, making it impossible to operate the LH fuel shut-off and the general cut-out handles. EASA states that this condition could lead to failure to manually operate the emergency shutdown controls during an emergency landing or fire. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 2013-0098-E requires an operating load check of the two cockpit fuel shut-off handles and, depending on findings, lubrication and/or replacement of the two tangential gearboxes.

Since we issued the NPRM, Eurocopter France changed its name to Airbus Helicopters, Inc. 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 received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 70242, November 25, 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 helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for the minor changes previously described. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 70242, November 25, 2013) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

The EASA AD requires differing compliance times based on when the helicopter's original Certificate of Airworthiness or Export Certificate of Airworthiness was issued. This AD makes no distinction regarding compliance times because there are only 4 affected aircraft on the U.S. registry.

Eurocopter issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 76A001, Revision 0, dated April 22, 2013, for the Model EC225LP civil helicopter and the Model EC725AP military helicopter to notify its operators that during a scheduled inspection of the fuel shut-off controls, a mechanic noticed that one of the shut-off controls jammed. This jamming made maneuvering the fuel shut-off and the general cut-out controls impossible. After an investigation, Eurocopter determined that the jamming originated in the tangential gearbox installed on this control. Traces of corrosion were observed on the internal bearings of the LH tangential gearbox, Eurocopter reported. The jamming of the fuel cut-off control prevents the engine input fuel valve and the engine compartment ventilation flap from closing and prevents the activation of the general cut-out control.

Eurocopter consequently called for a mandatory “check” of the fuel shut-off valve maneuvering loads, lubricating the tangential gearbox bearings, and depending on the load measurement, replacing the tangential gearbox.

We estimate that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Measuring the operating load of the two cockpit fuel shut-off controls require .25 work-hours for a labor cost of about $21, or $84 for the U.S. fleet. No parts are needed.

• Lubricating the tangential gearbox requires 4 work-hours. The cost of consumable materials is minimal for a total cost of $340 per helicopter.

• Replacing the tangential gearbox requires 4 work-hours for a labor cost of $340. Parts cost $4,943 for a total cost of $5,283 per helicopter.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0265-E, dated October 30, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises that during a scheduled inspection of the rotating control installation, two nuts, part number (P/N) MS21042-4, which connect the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission were found cracked. EASA states a subsequent investigation determined that the cracks in the nuts resulted from a production deficiency, which caused hydrogen embrittlement, at the nut manufacturer. EASA also states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the main rotor function and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The EASA Emergency AD requires repetitive inspections of each nut, P/N MS21042-4, for a crack, replacing any nut that has a crack with a different part-numbered nut, and, within 3 months, replacing each nut that does not have a crack with a different part-numbered nut. EASA Emergency AD 2013-0265-E also prohibits installing a nut, P/N MS21042-4, to connect the swashplate support to the upper case on any helicopter.

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

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109-137 for Model A109A, A109A II and A109C helicopters; BT No. 109EP-131 for Model A109E helicopters; BT No. 109K-59 for Model A109K2 helicopters; BT No. 109S-056 for Model A109S helicopters; BT No. 109SP-070 for Model AW109SP helicopters; and BT No. 119-062 for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. All of the BTs are Revision 0 and are dated October 29, 2013. Each BT describes procedures for inspecting the nuts connecting the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission for a crack and for replacing each nut, P/N MS21042-4, with a nut, P/N NAS1805-4.

This AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting each nut, P/N MS21042-4, which connects the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission, for a crack. If there is a crack on any nut, or within 25 hours TIS if there is not a crack, this AD requires replacing each nut, P/N MS21042-4, connecting the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission. This AD also prohibits installing a nut, P/N MS21042-4, connecting the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission on any helicopter.

The EASA AD requires replacing each nut, P/N MS21042-4, within 3 months, while this AD requires replacing the nuts within 25 hours TIS. The EASA AD also requires that each of the P/N MS21042-4 nuts be replaced with P/N NAS1805-4 nuts and this AD does not. The EASA AD also requires repetitive inspections of the P/N MS21042-4 nuts until they can be replaced and this AD does not. This AD does not apply to Model A109LUH helicopters as they are not type-certificated in the U.S.

We estimate that this AD affects 222 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the nuts connecting the swashplate support to the upper case of the main transmission requires about .5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $9,546. Replacing the nuts requires about 1 work-hour, and required parts cost is minimal, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $18,870.

Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment before adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done within 10 hours TIS and 25 hours TIS, a very short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Background

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144, July 9, 2012, 126 Stat. 1054), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) (a de novo request). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on March 14, 2011, classifying the Cabochon System into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On October 29, 2011, Cabochon Aesthetics, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Cabochon System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the de novo request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on July 12, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 878.4790.

Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a powered surgical instrument for improvement in the appearance of cellulite will need to comply with the special controls named in the final administrative order.

The device is assigned the generic name powered surgical instrument for improvement in the appearance of cellulite, and it is identified as a prescription device that is used for the controlled release of subcutaneous tissue for improvement in the appearance of cellulite. The device consists of a cutting tool powered by a motor and a means for instrument guidance to control the areas of subcutaneous tissue cutting underneath the cellulite depressions or dimples.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:

FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:

(1) Non-clinical testing must be performed to demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements, and to demonstrate durability and mechanical integrity of the device.

(2) In vivo evaluation of the device must demonstrate device performance, including the safety of the release methodology and blood loss at the treatment sites.

(3) All elements of the device that may contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

(4) Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility of the device must be demonstrated.

(5) The labeling must include a summary of in vivo evaluation data and all the device specific warnings, precautions, and/or contraindications.

(6) Sterility and shelf-life testing for the device must demonstrate the sterility of patient contacting components and the shelf life of these components.

Powered surgical instruments for improvement in the appearance of cellulite are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device. (Proposed § 878.4790(a) (21 CFR 878.4790(a)); see section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)) and § 801.109 (21 CFR 801.109) ( Prescription devices. ).) Prescription use restrictions are a type of general controls as defined in section 513(a)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act.

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the powered surgical instrument for improvement in the appearance of cellulite they intend to market.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 878 is amended as follows:

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish and amend the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards codified in 24 CFR part 3280. The Act was amended in 2000 by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569), by expanding its purposes and creating the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC).

As amended, the purposes of the Act (enumerated at 42 U.S.C. 5401) are: “(1) To protect the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of manufactured homes; (2) to facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and to increase homeownership for all Americans; (3) to provide for the establishment of practical, uniform, and, to the extent possible, performance-based Federal construction standards for manufactured homes; (4) to encourage innovative and cost-effective construction techniques for manufactured homes; (5) to protect residents of manufactured homes with respect to personal injuries and the amount of insurance costs and property damages in manufactured housing consistent with the other purposes of this section; (6) to establish a balanced consensus process for the development, revision, and interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards for manufactured homes and related regulations for the enforcement of such standards; (7) to ensure uniform and effective enforcement of Federal construction and safety standards for manufactured homes; and (8) to ensure that the public interest in, and need for, affordable manufactured housing is duly considered in all determinations relating to the Federal standards and their enforcement.”

On December 9, 2013, at 78 FR 73966, HUD published a final rule that amended the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards at 24 CFR part 3280 by adopting certain recommendations made to HUD by the MHCC, as modified by HUD. Among other changes, HUD's December 9, 2013, final rule revised the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards by updating the incorporated reference standards that establish the standards for the various components of a manufactured home. Most of HUD's changes codified existing building practices or conformed HUD standards to HUD interpretive bulletins or existing building codes.

One update codified by HUD's December 9, 2013, final rule was to require that shower, bath, and tub-shower combination valves be either balanced pressure, thermostatic, or a combination of mixing valves that conforms to the requirements of ASSE 1016-2005, Performance Requirements for Automatic Compensation Valves for Individual Showers and Tub/Shower Combinations. HUD codified this requirement in §§ 3280.4(o)(8), 3280.604(b), and 3280.607(b)(3)(v). HUD stated that these valves must have handle position stops that are adjustable in accordance with the valve manufacturer's instructions, to a maximum setting of 120 °F to prevent scalding and burn injuries to occupants from very hot water. This change was based on public safety and intended to reduce the number of injuries and deaths resulting from tap water scald burns. As HUD states in its final rule, the Centers for Disease Control and other organizations report that a majority of scald burn victims are young children whose injuries may have been prevented by the use of an anti-scald valve. Requiring the use of anti-scald valves is also consistent with International Residential Code (IRC) requirements for one- and two-family dwellings.

Since publishing the December 9, 2013, final rule, HUD has determined that ASSE 1016-2005, is an anti-scalding device designed for showers and tub-shower combinations. It is not the correct standard for an anti-scalding device designed for bathtub and whirlpool tubs without showers. Rather, the correct reference standard for anti-scald devices designed for bathtubs and whirlpool tubs without showers is ASSE 1070-2004, Performance Requirements for Water Temperature Limiting Devices, approved February 2004. There are some significant differences between ASSE 1016-2005 and ASSE 1070-2004. Most important, ASSE 1070-2004 has more stringent controls for minimum test flows than does ASSE 1016-2005. ASSE 1016-2005 valves are tested for temperature control at a minimum flow of 2.5 gallons/minute, the standard showerhead rating. ASSE 1070-2004 valves are tested to a minimum flow of 0.5 gallons/minute. This difference is important because accurate controls of water flows for bathtubs and whirlpool tubs at low flows are critical to user safety. The IRC identifies ASSE 1070-2004 as the correct standard for anti-scald devices designed for bathtubs and whirlpool tubs without showers.

Codifying ASSE 1070-2004 is a technical correction. In its July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39871), proposed rule, HUD proposed to require “that shower, bath, and tub-shower combination valves” be either balanced pressure, thermostatic, or a combination of mixing valves that conform to ASSE 1016-1996. In response to public comments, HUD stated that it would add new reference standards “for shower, bath, and tub-shower combination valves.” The December 9, 2013, final rule, however, incorporated the correct standard for only showers and tub-shower combinations. This rule corrects this oversight by adding ASSE 1070-2004 as the correct standard for bathtubs and whirlpool baths without showers.

To make this correction, this final rule revises § 3280.607(b)(3)(v) by clarifying that shower and tub shower combination valves must conform to the requirements of ASSE 1016-2005. Valves designed for bathtubs and whirlpool bathtubs without showers must conform to the requirements of ASSE 1070-2004. This final rule also makes conforming changes to §§ 3280.4 and 3280.604(b)(2).

The incorporation by reference of ASSE 1070-2004 is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the standard may be obtained from the organization that developed the standard. As described in § 3280.4, this standard is also available for inspection at HUD's Office of Manufactured Housing Programs and at the National Archives and Records Administration. This final rule incorporates a standard developed by the following organization:

ASSE—American Society of Sanitary Engineering, 901 Canterbury Road, Suite A, Westlake, Ohio 44145; telephone number 440-835-3040; fax number 440-835-3488; Web site, http://www.asse-plumbing.org.

HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR 10.1). For the following reasons, HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without first soliciting public comment.

This final rule amends the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards by incorporating the correct reference standard for anti-scald devices designed for bathtubs and whirlpool baths without showers, ASSE 1070-2004. Anti-scald valves mitigate the danger of serious burns and other hazards caused by bursts of hot water resulting from sudden changes in water pressure. In both its July 13, 2010, proposed rule and its December 9, 2013, final rule, HUD stated its intent to require anti-scald valves for all showers, baths, and tub-shower combinations. Public comments received in response to HUD's proposed rule supported HUD's proposed requirement and recognized that the installation of anti-scald valves is safety driven and would prevent, mitigate, or reduce the number of injuries to individuals living in manufactured homes. One commenter, citing the study conducted by Safe Kids  1 referenced in HUD's proposed rule, stated that requiring anti-scald valves in all showers, baths and tub-shower combinations was a low-cost measure that would prevent an estimated 100 kids from death by scalding hot water and an estimated 3000 people from being hospitalized and treated for scalding hot water. HUD responded to these comments by stating that it would add new reference standards “for shower, bath, and tub-shower combination valves.” HUD's final rule, however, incorporated a reference standard for shower and tub-shower combinations, but failed to incorporate a standard for bathtubs and whirlpool baths that do not have showers. To correct this and ensure the safety of occupants of manufactured homes with bathtubs and whirlpool baths without showers, this final rule incorporates ASSE 1070-2004.

Therefore, HUD determined that it is unnecessary to publish this rule for public comment prior to publishing the rule for effect.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits. As discussed above in this preamble, HUD's December 9, 2013, final rule did not incorporate the correct standard for anti-scald valves designed for fixtures such as bathtubs and whirlpool tubs that do not have showers. This final rule corrects this oversight. As a result, this rule was determined to not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an agency to conduct regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since notice and comment rulemaking is not necessary for this final rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment was made at the proposed rule stage (75 FR 39871) in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this final rule and is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the finding by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards is 14.171.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD is amending 24 CFR part 3280 as follows:

The Norfolk Southern Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Southern Railroad Drawbridge, across the Tennessee River, mile 304.4, at Decatur, Alabama to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for 14 hours from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on June 17, 2014, in order to replace and adjust the down haul operation ropes.

The Southern Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridge shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.

There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Tennessee River.

The Southern Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 10.52 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard was made aware of the fireworks displays on March 7, 2014. Upon full review of the events and details of the fireworks displays, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures are necessary. There are potential hazards associated with fireworks displays over or on the Ohio River and a safety zone is required to protect persons and property on or near the waterway during the displays. Completing the NPRM process and providing notice and a comment period is impracticable because it would unnecessarily delay this rule and the immediate safety measures it provides. Additionally, the events, which are followed by fireworks displays are advertised to the local community by and through the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. Delaying the safety zone effective date to complete the NPRM process would interfere with the advertised and planned for displays and would unnecessarily interfere with contractual obligations related to these events.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Providing a full 30 days notice would be impracticable and would unnecessarily delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date would also be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays over or on the Ohio River.

A fireworks display is planned to conclude the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra concerts scheduled on June 7, 2014 and July 4, 2014. These displays will feature fireworks being launched from Riverbend Music Center, located near the shoreline between miles 460.9 and 461.3 on the Ohio River at Cincinnati, OH. The Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to keep persons and property clear of any potential hazards associated with the launching of fireworks on or over the waterway.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property, including spectators, commercial and recreational vessels, and others that may be in the area during the noticed fireworks display times from the hazards associated with the fireworks displays on and over the waterway.

The COTP Ohio Valley will enforce a temporary safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on June 7, 2014 and 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014 for the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra fireworks display. The fireworks will be launched from Riverbend Music Center and the safety zone will include all waters between Ohio River miles 460.9 and 461.3, extending 300 ft. from the state of Ohio shoreline at Cincinnati, Ohio. The Coast Guard will enforce the temporary safety zone and may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. During the periods of enforcement, no vessels may transit into, through, or remain within this Coast Guard safety zone. Deviation from this safety zone may be requested by contacting the COTP Ohio Valley or other designated representative. Deviations will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced for limited time periods following certain Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra concerts. During enforcement periods, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone size, and short duration of each enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of this safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the COTP Ohio Valley and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor between Ohio River miles 460.9 to 461.3, within 300 ft. of the Ohio shoreline from 9:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on June 7, 2014 and from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is limited in size and will be enforced for a limited time period following certain scheduled Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra concerts. The Coast Guard will provide notice of enforcement and changes in the planned schedule through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with the scheduled Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra fireworks displays taking place on or over the Ohio River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard was made aware of the schedule for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks displays, based on the Reds' home game schedule, on January 28, 2014. There are potential hazards associated with fireworks displays over or on the Ohio River and a safety zone is required to protect persons and property on or near the waterway during the displays. Completing the NPRM process and providing notice and a comment period is impracticable because it would unnecessarily delay this rule and the immediate safety measures it provides. Additionally, the Reds' schedule and these fireworks displays are advertised to the local community by and through the Cincinnati Reds organization. Delaying the safety zone effective date to complete the NPRM process would interfere with the advertised and planned for displays and would unnecessarily interfere with contractual obligations related to these events.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Providing a full 30 days notice would be impracticable and would unnecessarily delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date would also be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays over or on the Ohio River.

Multiple fireworks displays are planned to conclude the Cincinnati Reds home games scheduled on April 2 & 11; May 2, 9 & 23; June 6 & 20; July 4, 11 & 25; August 8 & 22; and September 5 & 26, 2014. These displays will feature fireworks being launched from the Great American Ballpark Stadium, located near the shoreline between miles 470.1 and 470.4 on the Ohio River at Cincinnati, OH. The Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to keep persons and property clear of any potential hazards associated with the launching of fireworks on or over the waterway.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property, including spectators, commercial and recreational vessels, and others that may be in the area during the noticed fireworks display times from the hazards associated with the fireworks display on and over the waterway.

The COTP Ohio Valley is establishing a temporary safety zone from 9:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on April 2 & 11; May 2, 9 & 23; June 6 & 20; July 4, 11 & 25; August 8 & 22; September 5 & 26, 2014 for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks. The fireworks will be launched from the Great American Ballpark Stadium and the safety zone will include all waters between Ohio River miles 470.1 and 470.4, extending 500 ft. from the state of Ohio shoreline at Cincinnati, Ohio. The Coast Guard will enforce the temporary safety zone and may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. During the periods of enforcement, no vessels may transit into, through, or remain within this Coast Guard safety zone. Deviation from this safety zone may be requested by contacting the COTP Ohio Valley or other designated representative. Deviations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Should the Cincinnati Reds make the playoffs and have additional home games, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of enforcement periods via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced for limited time periods following certain Cincinnati Reds home games. During enforcement periods, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone size, and short duration of each enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of this safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the COTP Ohio Valley and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor between Ohio River miles 470.1 to 470.4, within 500 ft. of the Ohio shoreline from 9:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on April 2 & 11; May 2, 9 & 23; June 6 & 20; July 4, 11 & 25; August 8 & 22; September 5 & 26, 2014.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is limited in size and will be enforced for a limited time period following certain scheduled Cincinnati Reds home games. The Coast Guard will provide notice of enforcement and changes in the planned schedule through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with the scheduled Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks displays taking place on or over the Ohio River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CIBE program is to provide funding to institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions for curriculum development, research, and training on issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness.

Applicable Program Regulations: As there are no program-specific regulations, we encourage each potential applicant to read the authorizing statute for the CIBE program in section 612 of Title VI, Part B, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1130-1.

We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15084). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities. There is a difference between the proposed priorities and these final priorities as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, five parties submitted comments. Three of the comments addressed the proposed priorities and two of the comments addressed the wording in the Purpose of Program section of the NPP.

We discuss substantive issues under the priority to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows.

Comment: Two commenters noted that the wording in the Purpose of Program section of the NPP does not accurately reflect the entities eligible for funding under the CIBE program. They stated that schools of business are not the only eligible entities and suggested broader wording.

Discussion: We agree that the wording in the Purpose of Program section of the NPP is too narrow and does not accurately reflect the purpose of the program under the statute. Under the statute (20 U.S.C. 1130-1(a)(2)), the program is designed to support institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions.

Changes: We revised the Purpose of Program section in this notice of final priorities to specify that the CIBE program provides funding to institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions, rather than just to schools of business.

Comment: A commenter endorsed the proposed priorities and expressed appreciation for the Department of Education's efforts to facilitate stronger participation of MSIs. In addition, the commenter urged us to use these priorities as absolute or competitive preference priorities.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. However, it is our practice to specify the priority types for each competition in the notice inviting applications, not in a notice of final priorities.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter suggested that business education should include a study of labor laws to address inequalities in the workplace and the protection of workers values.

Discussion: The CIBE program focuses on supporting institutions of higher education that operate centers for international business education. Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from incorporating the study of labor laws and microinequities in the workplace into its curriculum. However, we do not wish to limit grantees in their project design by further specifying areas of study.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter stated that the wording of the proposed priority implied that an applicant can meet the priority by proposing collaborative activities with only one MSI or community college and requested that we change the priority to allow collaboration with multiple MSIs or community colleges.

Discussion: We agree that the proposed priority unnecessarily limited the scope of the priority and we are revising the final priority to include the option of collaborating with one or more MSIs or community colleges. We believe that a proposed project could benefit from collaboration with more than one MSI or community college, or a combination of MSIs and community colleges.

In addition, in connection with a comment received on a similar priority under a different program, we considered whether, for an applicant that meets the definition of an MSI, we should allow that institution to meet the priority by conducting intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges. After further review, we believe it is appropriate to permit an institution that is also an MSI the flexibility to focus on intra-campus collaborative activities as well as on collaborative activities with other MSIs and community colleges.

Changes: We have revised the priority to clarify that an institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges, or a combination of MSIs and community colleges. We have also clarified that an institution that is an MSI may meet the priority by proposing intra-campus collaborative activities as well as on collaborative activities with other MSIs and community colleges.

Applications that propose to collaborate with one or more professional associations and/or businesses on activities designed to expand employment opportunities for international business students, such as internships and work-study opportunities.

Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative activities with one or more MSIs (as defined in this notice) and/or with one or more community colleges (as defined in this notice). These activities must be designed to incorporate international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the business curriculum of the MSI(s) and/or community college(s). If an applicant institution is an MSI (as defined in this notice), that institution may propose intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.

For the purpose of this priority:

Community college means an institution that meets the definition in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent) or master's, professional, or other advanced degrees.

Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of Title III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final priorities only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This is a correction to the Order FCC 14-24 that was published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 26175, May 7, 2014. Accordingly, this corrects the document by publishing the last page of the FY 2014 Application Fee Order.

• On page 26175, add the following amendatory instruction and regulatory text:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, IB Docket No. 12-299, FCC 14-48, adopted April 22, 2014, and released April 22, 2014. The full text of the Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document also is available for download over the Internet at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0422/FCC-14-48A1.pdf.

The complete text also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), located in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1-800-378-3160.

1. In the Report and Order, the Commission eliminates the formal ECO Test that applies to Commission review of applications filed by foreign carriers or affiliates of foreign carriers for entry into the U.S. market for international telecommunications services and facilities pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 214, and section 2 of the Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C. sections 34-39. The Commission will no longer apply the ECO Test to (1) section 214 applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates that have market power in non-WTO countries they seek to serve; (2) notifications filed by an authorized U.S. carrier affiliated with or seeking to become affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power in a non-WTO country in which the U.S. carrier is authorized to serve; (3) submarine cable landing license applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates that have market power in non-WTO countries where the cable lands; and (4) notifications filed by a U.S. cable landing licensee affiliated with or seeking to become affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power in a non-WTO country where the cable lands. Instead, the Commission will require that an applicant from a non-WTO country demonstrate whether or not it has market power in the non-WTO country where it seeks to provide international services or where the cable lands, and, if so, the application and/or notification will be placed on a non-streamlined public notice, providing an opportunity for public comment. Further, the Commission will continue to coordinate applications with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and other Executive Branch agencies, and defer to these agencies in matters relating to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy concerns. In evaluating applications or notifications, the Commission will retain the ability to request additional information from the applicant in response to concerns raised by USTR or any interested party, or as a result of its own public interest analysis. In addition, the Commission will continue to protect competition and prevent anticompetitive strategies that foreign carriers can use to discriminate among U.S. carriers by continuing to maintain its dominant carrier safeguards and “no special concessions” rules. This approach will enable the Commission to address any specific concerns that may arise with a particular non-WTO market and potentially effectuate changes in that market related to those concerns, rather than requiring such information from all such applicants. In this manner the Commission will continue its policy of promoting effective competition in the U.S. telecommunications service market.

2. The ECO Test is a set of criteria first adopted in the 1995 Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 60 Fed Reg 67332 (1995), as a condition of entry into the U.S. international telecommunications services market by foreign carriers that possess market power on the foreign end of a U.S.-international route on which they seek to provide service pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. 214(a). The Commission adopted the ECO Test in response to concerns that foreign carriers with market power seeking to enter the U.S. international services market could use their foreign market power to benefit themselves and/or their U.S. affiliates, to the disadvantage of unaffiliated U.S. carriers and, ultimately, U.S. consumers. The test was designed to serve three stated goals for the regulation of U.S. international telecommunications services: To promote effective competition in the U.S. telecommunications service market; to prevent anticompetitive conduct in the provision of international services or facilities; and to encourage foreign governments to open their telecommunications markets.

3. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission initiated this proceeding in light of the developments in international telecommunications and the small number of filings requiring an ECO Test determination since the ECO Test was adopted in 1995. In addition, since 1998, when the WTO Basic Telecommunications Agreement went into effect, WTO Membership has grown from 132 to 159 Members. There are 24 WTO Observer countries in the process of joining, or acceding to, the WTO. Although approximately one-fifth of all countries are WTO Observers or other non-WTO countries that have not opened up their markets pursuant to WTO accords, the WTO Observers and non-WTO countries collectively represent only about one percent of the world's gross domestic product.

4. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission noted that the detailed ECO Test requirements were designed to be applied to countries that could support advanced regulatory regimes, but that most of the remaining non-WTO Member countries are smaller countries and may be without resources to support a regulatory framework that meets all of the detailed ECO Test requirements. Further, the Commission stated that the most recent actions taken show that a non-WTO country may have a relatively open market even if its regulatory regime does not fully satisfy the ECO Test with the precision originally anticipated by the rules.

5. In view of these considerations, the Commission proposed to either (1) eliminate the ECO Test from the Commission's section 214 rules, or (2) modify the ECO Test criteria for section 214 authority applications and cable landing licenses, including their respective foreign carrier affiliation notifications, and to codify these modified ECO Tests in the Commission rules.

6. AT&T filed comments in response to the NPRM supporting modification of the ECO Test as proposed in the NPRM, and proposing to expand the section 214 ECO Test to add a requirement that U.S. carriers have the right to own capacity on submarine cables landing in the foreign country and the ability to access such capacity at submarine cable stations operated by foreign dominant carriers in the applicant's country.

7. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) supported the Commission's proposal in this proceeding to eliminate the ECO Test applied to applications for section 214 authorizations and cable landing licenses. USTR wants to ensure that Executive Branch agencies, and, in particular, USTR, continue to receive notice of applications and retain the ability to file comments in opposition to applications where trade policy issues are implicated.

8. Revised and Codified Rules for Foreign Entry Into the U.S. Telecommunications Market. The Report and Order adopts the NPRM proposal to eliminate the ECO Test which the Commission applied to review of international section 214 applications and cable landing license applications filed by foreign carrier or their affiliates that have market power in non-WTO countries, and to notifications filed by authorized U.S. carriers or cable landing licensees affiliated with, or seeking to become affiliated with, a foreign carrier having market power in a non-WTO country that the U.S. carrier or cable landing licensee is authorized to serve. The Report and Order also codifies the modified rules in sections 1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2) and 63.18(k) of the Commission's rules.

9. The Commission concluded in the Report and Order that retention of the ECO Test is no longer necessary to protect competition, and found that elimination of unnecessary requirements will reduce regulatory burdens and enhance its ability to expeditiously review foreign entry that may be advantageous to U.S. consumers. By eliminating the ECO Test, the filing and review process for applications filed by foreign carriers having market power in non-WTO countries for entry into the U.S. market for the provision of facilities and services is simplified. The Commission found that it can effectively analyze potential market barriers on an as-needed basis, rather than through a formal test, to make a public interest determination as to whether U.S. carriers are experiencing competitive problems in a particular market, and whether the public interest would be served by authorizing the foreign carrier to enter the U.S. market. Under this approach, applications and notifications placed on non-streamlined public notice will provide an opportunity for U.S. carriers and government agencies to review and provide comment on such applications and notifications as to whether they are experiencing problems in entering the market of the relevant non-WTO country. As noted, in considering potential areas of concern the review of any particular application, the Commission will coordinate with the USTR, which is in the best position to determine whether a non-WTO country supports open entry, and other appropriate agencies as necessary.

10. The Commission also emphasized that, in contrast to its approach to applicants from WTO countries, this approach does not carry the presumption in favor of market entry that is applied in the WTO context. Thus, the regulatory framework will continue to encourage non-WTO countries to seek WTO membership and should not be interpreted by either WTO or non-WTO Members as a signal that they can resist pressure to liberalize their markets. As proposed in the NPRM and stated in the Report and Order, the Commission will continue to apply the dominant carrier safeguards in sections 63.10 and 1.767 of the rules, and the “no special concessions” rules in sections 63.14 and 1.767 of the rules, which help prevent certain anticompetitive strategies that foreign carriers can use to discriminate among their U.S. carrier correspondents.

11. Elimination of ECO Test to Section 214 applications and Foreign Ownership Notifications: The Commission will no longer will apply the ECO Test to (1) section 214 applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates that have market power in non-WTO countries they seek to serve and (2) notifications filed by an authorized U.S. carrier affiliated with or seeking to become affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power in a country in which the U.S. carrier is authorized to serve. The Commission will continue to require a foreign carrier applicant for a section 214 authorization or a U.S. authorized carrier filing a foreign affiliation notification to provide the information set out in the rules to establish its qualifications to receive such authorization or to identify its foreign affiliation. Based on information submitted by the applicant or notifying carrier, if the Commission determines that the applicant or notifying carrier is a foreign carrier, or is seeking to become affiliated with, a foreign carrier with market power in a non-WTO Member country, then the application will not be eligible for streamlined processing and will be placed on a 28-day public notice pursuant to Commission rules. Foreign carrier affiliation notifications will continue to require a 45-day notification prior to consummation of the transaction. This notice period provides an opportunity for U.S. carriers and government agencies to file comments as to whether they are experiencing problems in entering the market of the relevant non-WTO country. The Commission may also seek additional information from the applicant or notification filer including, but not limited to, the ability of U.S. carriers to obtain a controlling interest in a carrier in the foreign country, the existence of competitive safeguards in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices, the existence of reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection arrangements, and whether U.S. cable licensees have the right to enter the market of the non-WTO country and own or access capacity on submarine cables landing in that country. Through this approach the Commission will be able to assess the ability of U.S. carriers to effectively compete in a particular market of a foreign U.S. 214 applicant, and make a determination and take action appropriate to the market in question. If the Commission should find that U.S. carriers are experiencing competitive problems in the home market of a foreign carrier section 214 applicant or notification filer, the Commission could deny the application or impose conditions on the authorization that address the problems it may find.

12. Elimination of ECO Test to Cable Landing Licenses and Foreign Ownership Notifications: The Commission eliminated the ECO Test as a formal requirement for cable landing license applications and notifications of foreign carrier affiliation by submarine cable licensees, and modified its rules to require that that an applicant or notification filer from a non-WTO Member country demonstrate, pursuant to sections 47 CFR 1.767 and 47 CFR 1.768, whether or not it has market power in the non-WTO Member country where the cable lands, with reference to 47 CFR 63.10(a) of the rules. If the demonstration reveals that the applicant is itself, or is affiliated with, a foreign carrier with market power in the proposed cable's non-WTO destination country, then, pursuant to existing rules, the application will not be eligible for streamlined processing. With respect to notifications, the disclosure of market power in the non-WTO country will trigger the existing 45-day waiting period before the transaction can be consummated.

13. Applications not subject to streamlining are placed on public notice for 28 days and the Commission has 90 days to act on them, subject to extension of this period. This period provides an opportunity for U.S. cable licensees to comment and indicate specific problems that they have in owning and operating cables facilities in the country where the cable lands. In addition to investigating allegations of such problems, the Commission will coordinate comments that are filed with appropriate Executive Branch agencies and impose, if necessary, appropriate conditions on the license.

14. This Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. These information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting comment on the new or revised information collection requirement(s) adopted in this document. The requirement(s) will not go into effect until OMB has approved it and the Commission has published a notice announcing the effective date of the information collection requirement(s). In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a final regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

16. In this Report and Order, the Commission decides to eliminate the ECO Test that currently applies to review of applications for international section 214 authority and cable landing licenses. It also eliminates the ECO Test as it applies to notifications filed by authorized U.S. carriers and cable landing licensees of an affiliation with a foreign carrier with market power in a non-WTO Member country. Instead of applying an ECO Test to these applications, the Commission will apply a simplified approach to the filing and review of section 214 applications, cable landing license applications, and notifications from authorized U.S.-international carriers and cable landing licensees. The Commission maintains its ability to seek additional information from the applicant and notification filer as needed if an inquiry is warranted as to whether an applicant's home market is open to entry for U.S. international carriers and cable landing licensees. This approach will reduce unnecessary regulatory costs and burdens where only limited investigation is necessary in connection with an application. Under this approach, the Commission continues to maintain other regulatory safeguards under section 214 of the Communications Act and under the Cable Landing License Act, as well as to maintain existing coordination arrangements with Executive Branch agencies to protect national security and take into account law enforcement, foreign policy and trade policy considerations.

17. From a historical perspective, the Commission has had little need to apply the ECO Test since its adoption in 1995. The Commission has taken only eight actions applying the ECO Test in the 19 years since its adoption. While the Commission cannot project exactly how many foreign carriers, or affiliates of foreign carriers with market power in non-WTO Member countries, may in the future seek entry into the U.S. telecommunications market, there is nothing in the record to suggest that there will be significantly more such carriers than there have been in the past. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of this Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. This final certification will also be published in the Federal Register .

18. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFC), in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this FRFC, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFC (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

19. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), and 403, and the Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C. 34-39 and Executive Order No. 10530, section 5(a), this Report and Order is adopted, and the policies, rules, and requirements discussed herein are adopted, and parts 1 and 63 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 1 and 63, are amended as set forth in Appendix A.

20. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

21. It is further ordered that the policies, rules, and requirements established in this decision shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register , except for §§ 1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2), and 63.18, which contains modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.

22. It is further ordered that this proceeding, IB Docket No. 12-299, is hereby terminated.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communication Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 63 as follows:

Previous Federal Action

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for Ivesia webberi (78 FR 46889; August 2, 2013) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Elsewhere in today's Federal Register , we published a final rule to designate critical habitat for Ivesia webberi under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Ivesia webberi is a low, spreading perennial forb in the Rose family (Rosaceae) with grayish-green foliage; dark-red, wiry stems; and headlike clusters of small, yellow flowers. This species occupies vernally moist, rocky, clay soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and swell upon drying and wetting in open to sparsely vegetated areas associated with an Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush)—perennial bunchgrass—forb community. The specialized soils are well developed, a process estimated to take 1,000 years. Limited seed dispersal and apparent limited recruitment further restrict the occupied range and distribution of I. webberi (Service 2014, pp. 4-7).

Ivesia webberi is currently known to occupy a total of approximately 165 acres (66.8 hectares) within five counties in California and Nevada along the transition zone between the eastern edge of the northern Sierra Nevada and the northwestern edge of the Great Basin (Service 2014, p. 8). The species is known historically from a total of 17 populations, but 1 has been extirpated and a portion of another (1 of 4 subpopulations) is possibly extirpated. Of the remaining 16 populations, the status of 2 are unknown, and we currently are uncertain whether the species still persists at these locations (Service 2014, pp. 14-21). For the remaining 14 populations where the species' status is better understood, 10 occur on areas that are less than 5 ac (2 ha) each. Reliable estimation of population sizes or trends in I. webberi is complicated because past population estimates have usually been obtained by different observers employing a variety of methodologies and varying levels of survey effort (Service 2014, p. 12).

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for Ivesia webberi (78 FR 46889; August 2, 2013) and the updated Species Report (Service 2014, entire), available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0079, for a summary of additional species information.

Due to the restricted range, specialized habitat requirements, and limited recruitment and dispersal of Ivesia webberi, populations of this species are vulnerable to ongoing and future threats that affect both individual plants and their habitat. The primary threat to I. webberi is the combined and synergistic effect from the encroachment of nonnative, invasive plant species into the I. webberi plant community and the modified fire regime resulting from this encroachment (Service 2014, pp. 23-26). Nonnative, invasive plant species, such as Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), Poa bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass), and Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead), have become established and are part of the associated plant community at 12 of the 16 extant populations of I. webberi. Nonnative, invasive plant species negatively affect I. webberi through competition, displacement, and degradation of the quality and composition of the Artemisia arbuscula —perennial bunchgrass—forb community in which I. webberi occurs. In addition to these effects, these nonnative, invasive plant species, once established, contribute fuels that increase the frequency and likelihood of wildfire in I. webberi habitat.

Wildfire was historically infrequent in the Great Basin because the native plant communities made up of annuals and perennial bunchgrasses did not provide sufficient fine fuels to carry large-scale wildfires. The bare spaces between widely spaced shrubs and the low fuel load of native annuals and perennial bunchgrasses generally prevented fire from spreading, so the fires that did burn were restricted to isolated patches. In Artemisia arbuscula communities, such as those that Ivesia webberi inhabits, the average fire return interval is greater than 100 years, due to natural lower productivity and fuel accumulations (Service 2014, p. 24). However, beginning in the late 1800s, the widespread invasion of nonnative plant species, particularly annual grasses, has created a bed of continuous fine fuels across the sagebrush landscape in many areas (Service 2014, p. 25). This increase in fine fuels created by nonnative, invasive plants has resulted in more frequent fires that burn larger areas and often burn at higher intensities. Post-fire conditions further facilitate the invasion and establishment of nonnative, invasive plant species, thus creating a positive feedback loop between increased wildfire and the spread of these species (Service 2014, pp. 25-26). Ten of the 16 extant I. webberi populations have experienced wildfire since 1984 (Service 2014, p. 25). Because I. webberi did not evolve with frequent fire and does not possess adaptations that would help it persist in a frequent-fire fire regime, wildfires are expected to have adverse population-level impacts on the species. Increased wildfire frequency within the species' range also results in increased wildfire suppression activities, which also may adversely affect I. webberi populations (Service 2014, pp. 22, 25-26).

Other threats impacting Ivesia webberi populations include off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, roads, development, livestock grazing, and climate change (Service 2014, pp. 26-32). OHV impacts to I. webberi populations have increased during the past 20 years as population growth and associated development have increased (Bergstrom 2009, p. 22), especially in the Reno urban area where 6 of the 16 populations occur. Eleven of 16 extant I. webberi populations are adjacent to or intersected by dirt roads and have been impacted to some degree by road development and OHV use (Service 2014, pp. 26-27). Roads cause habitat loss and degradation, and when vehicles drive off existing roads and trails, they can crush plants, compact soils, and provide a means for nonnative, invasive plant species to invade otherwise remote, intact habitats. The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) concluded that a 2006 travel management plan for Peavine Mountain would benefit rare plant species, including I. webberi; however, designated roads open to all vehicles continue to bisect I. webberi populations, and unauthorized OHV use remains high within I. webberi populations on Forest Service lands in the Reno urban area (Service 2014, p. 27).

Development, which results in direct mortality and in habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, has resulted in the extirpation of one Ivesia webberi population and the loss of a portion of another population (Service 2014, p. 27). Residential or commercial development is ongoing or planned at each of the four Nevada populations located on private lands. In addition, construction of a 120-kV overhead transmission line may impact two I. webberi populations located on Forest Service lands (Service 2014, pp. 27-28). Livestock grazing has the potential to result in negative effects to I. webberi due to trampling and substrate disturbance, but this situation is dependent on factors such as stocking rate and season of use. Two I. webberi populations occur in areas that are currently grazed by cattle, and another seven populations occur within vacant grazing allotments that could be reopened to grazing to alleviate grazing pressures on nearby allotments (Service 2014, p. 30).

Climate change is likely to affect Ivesia webberi, although it is difficult to project specific effects. In the Great Basin, temperatures have risen 0.9 to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (0.5 to 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C)) in the last 100 years and are projected to warm another 3.8 to 10.3 °F (2.1 to 5.7 °C) over the rest of the century (Service 2014, p. 31). Under current climate change projections, we anticipate that future climatic conditions will favor the further spread of nonnative, invasive plants and increase the frequency, spatial extent, and severity of wildfires (Service 2014, p. 31). Alteration of temperature and precipitation patterns as a result of climate change also may result in decreased survivorship of I. webberi by causing physiological stress, altering phenology, and reducing reproduction or seedling establishment.

Because most of the habitat where the species is known to occur is located on Federal lands (69 percent of occupied habitat occurs on Forest Service lands, and 3 percent of occupied habitat occurs on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands), Ivesia webberi receives some conservation protections resulting from Federal laws and the regulations and policies implementing those laws (e.g., the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.; Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Ivesia webberi receives special consideration on Federal lands because it is classified as a sensitive species by both the Forest Service and BLM (Service 2014, pp. 3-4). The species also is classified as threatened with extinction and fully protected by the State of Nevada; removing or destroying I. webberi and other fully protected plants is prohibited except under special permit issued by the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF 2013). Ivesia webberi is not listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), but has a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant rank of 1B.1 (seriously threatened in California with over 80 percent of occurrences threatened and high degree and immediacy of threat (CNPS 2013)). Ivesia webberi and other plants with a CNPS 1B rank must be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CNPS 2013).

The Forest Service drafted a rangewide conservation strategy for Ivesia webberi to guide conservation actions for the species on Forest Service lands (Service 2014, pp. 21-22). The conservation strategy, which was signed in 2010, will result in long-term benefits to I. webberi populations located on Forest Service lands (Bergstrom 2009, pp. 1-46). However, we expect that the landscape-level threats of nonnative, invasive plants and increased wildfire will continue to adversely affect I. webberi populations across the species' range (Service 2014, p. 22).

Please refer to the proposed listing rule (78 FR 46889; August 2, 2013) and the Species Report (Service 2014), available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0079, for a more detailed discussion of the biological status of Ivesia webberi and the impacts affecting the species and its habitat. Our assessment was based upon the best available scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the Species Report team members.

No significant changes have been made to the information presented in the proposed listing rule. Minor edits have been made to the biological information summarized above in the Background section of this rule based on new information received from the U.S. Forest Service and our survey efforts. New information includes:

(1) A second subpopulation was discovered within population USFWS 9, containing 50 individual plants (C. Schnurrenberger, unpul. Survey 2013).

(2) Two populations (USFWS 14 and 15) previously determined to be extant have been recently confirmed, and survey information provided us baseline information on numbers of individuals and quality of the habitat. Specifically, these populations were found to harbor relatively high population estimates, but also high levels of invasion by Taeniatherum caput-medusae (S. Kulpa, E. Bergstrom, and C. Ghiglieri, unpubl. survey 2013; S. Kulpa and E. Hourihan, unpubl. survey 2013).

(3) Two populations (USFWS 3 and 4) were confirmed extant (as opposed to probable extant), and surveys indicated low numbers of individuals over a small occupied area (S. Kulpa and J. Johnson, unpubl. survey 2013a; S. Kulpa and J. Johnson, unpubl. survey 2013b).

In the proposed rule published on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46889), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by October 1, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Reno Gazette Journal, and we held a public/informational meeting in Reno on September 10, 2013. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Ivesia webberi and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We did not receive responses from any of the peer reviewers, nor any responses from State agencies. We reviewed all other comments we received for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Ivesia webberi.

Comment 1: The Forest Service commended us for thorough documentation of known occurrences of Ivesia webberi, and recommended that we consider the possible relevance of historical and potential habitats for the full recovery of Ivesia webberi.

Our Response: We thank the Forest Service for its review. We agree that historical and potential habitats are important considerations for developing conservation and recovery strategies. We expect that these factors will receive focused attention during the preparation of a recovery plan for this species.

Comment 2: One commenter listed several reasons why they support listing Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadow cinquefoil) under the Act rather than its removal from the candidate list.

Our Response: Although we thank the commenter for their review, we note that our 12-month finding and candidate removal for Potentilla basaltica was made final on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46889). This finding was based upon the best available information, and constitutes our final determination on the subject petition for this species, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Based on our analysis of the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and as explained further in the published finding, we have concluded that the previously recognized impacts to P. basaltica from present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (recreational use; OHV use; introduction of nonnative, invasive plant species; and trampling by livestock) do not rise to a level of significance such that the species is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The status of P. basaltica will therefore not be re-evaluated. However, we welcome new information on this and other species at any time, and will consider relevant information in any future evaluations and listing decisions.

Comment 3: One commenter asked how we plan to protect the plant if it is on private property, and also asked how the Act's status of the plant would affect private property owners when the plant is located on privately owned lands.

Our Response: The Act does not prohibit the destruction, damage, or movement of endangered or threatened plants unless such activities occur on lands that are under Federal jurisdiction, or if the action occurs in conjunction with the violation of State laws. Therefore, if a person wishes to develop private land, with no Federal jurisdiction involved and in accordance with State law, then the potential destruction, damage, or movement of endangered or threatened plants does not violate the Act.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Ivesia webberi. We considered the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in determining whether I. webberi meets the Act's definition of an endangered species (section 3(6)) or a threatened species (section 3(20)). We determined that I. webberi is threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A). The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range includes habitat loss and degradation due to nonnative, invasive plants; modified fire regime (increased wildfire); OHV use; roads; development; livestock grazing; and climate change. Of these, we consider the combined and synergistic effects of nonnative, invasive plant encroachment and increased wildfire to be the greatest threat to I. webberi.

Nonnative, invasive plant species such as Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum caput-medusae can outcompete and displace I. webberi and result in increased frequency, spatial extent, and severity of wildfires because of the increase in fine fuels they produce. Twelve of the 16 extant populations have already been invaded by nonnative, invasive plant species, and 10 of the 16 extant populations have been impacted by wildfire since 1984. Because there are currently no feasible means for controlling the spread of widespread nonnative, invasive plant species such as B. tectorum and T. caput-medusae, we expect that wildfires will continue to impact I. webberi populations. Increased temperatures and altered precipitation patterns due to climate change are projected to lead to further increases in wildfire and nonnative, invasive plants. OHV use, roads, development, and livestock grazing are having impacts on certain I. webberi populations.

We did not identify threats to Ivesia webberi due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); disease or predation (Factor C); or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E). Although regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are in place that provide some protection to I. webberi and its habitat, these mechanisms do not completely alleviate all of the threats currently acting on the species.

The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” Available population information for Ivesia webberi is not useful for determining trends because population estimates have been obtained by different observers employing a variety of means and levels of survey effort. Nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; and OHV activity are present impacts throughout the range of I. webberi and in some cases are found to be increasing for many years with data in particular related to increased recreational OHV activity over the past 20 years (Service 2014, pp. 26-27) and increased wildfire and suppression activities over the past 30 years (Service 2014, pp. 22, 24-26). Additionally, given current climate change projections, we anticipate that future climatic conditions will favor invasion by nonnative, invasive plant species, which will further contribute to increases in frequency, spatial extent, and severity of wildfires (Service 2014, pp. 30-32). Based on the timeframe associated with the documented increased level of some threats over the past 30 years and the effects of climate change projections on these threats, we estimate the foreseeable future to be at least 30 years (i.e., 2044).

We determined that Ivesia webberi is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, but that it is likely to become endangered throughout all of its range in the foreseeable future. We determined that I. webberi is not presently in danger of extinction because the species is characterized by multiple populations spread across northeastern California and northwestern Nevada and that, in total, these populations provide sufficient redundancy (multiple populations distributed across the landscape), resiliency (capacity for a species to recover from periodic disturbance), and representation (range of variation found in a species) such that I. webberi is not at immediate risk of extinction. However, because multiple threats (nonnative, invasive plants; increased wildfire; OHV use; roads; development; livestock grazing; and climate change) are impacting many of the I. webberi populations and because combined and synergistic effects, due to encroachment of nonnative, invasive plants and increased wildfire, as well as climate change, are likely to continue and increase in the future, we find that I. webberi is likely to become an endangered species throughout all of its range in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing I. webberi as a threatened species.

In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species' range that are not significant, such portions will not warrant further consideration.

If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in these portions of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address either the significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the Service considers significance first and determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there. Likewise, if the Service considers status first and determines that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. However, if the Service determines that both a portion of the range of a species is significant and the species is endangered or threatened there, the Service will specify that portion of the range as endangered or threatened under section 4(c)(1) of the Act.

The primary threats to Ivesia webberi occur throughout the species' range and are not restricted to or concentrated in any particular portion of that range. The primary threats of nonnative, invasive plants and increased wildfire are impacting I. webberi populations throughout the California and Nevada portions of the species' range. Climate change also is acting on I. webberi throughout the species' range. Thus, we conclude that threats impacting I. webberi are not concentrated in certain areas, and, thus, there are no significant portions of its range where the species should be classified as an endangered species. Accordingly, this listing of I. webberi as a threatened species applies throughout the species' entire range.

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control, for example, whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site ( http://www.fws.gov/endangered ), or from our Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Based on this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of California and Nevada will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of Ivesia webberi. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for Ivesia webberi. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.

Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include land management actions that could result in impacts to soil characteristics or seedbank viability, pollinators or their habitat, and associated native vegetation community, and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands, such as: Reauthorization of grazing permits by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with respect to a threatened plant species any act prohibited by section 9(a)(2) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, which has been delegated to the Service by the Secretary, the Service has developed general prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened plants at 50 CFR 17.71. Therefore, we are not promulgating a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act, and as a result, all of the applicable section 9 prohibitions, set forth at 50 CFR 17.71, will apply to Ivesia webberi.

It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and threatened plants. The Service codified the Act's prohibitions applicable to endangered plants at 50 CFR 17.61 and by regulation extended the prohibitions to threatened plants at 50 CFR 17.71. Section 9(a)(2) and 50 CFR 17.61(a) make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction, but 50 CFR 17.71(a) contains an exception for the seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement that the seeds are of “cultivated origin” accompanies the seeds or their container. Also, 50 CFR 17.71(b) authorizes Service and State conservation agency employees to remove and reduce to possession from Federal lands those threatened plant species covered by cooperative agreements under section 6(c) of the Act. The following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:

(1) Import of Ivesia webberi into, or export of this species from, the United States without authorization.

(2) Removal and reduction to possession of I. webberi from areas under Federal jurisdiction.

(3) Delivery, receipt, carrying, transport, or shipping of I. webberi in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity.

(4) Sale, or offer for sale, of I. webberi in interstate or foreign commerce.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Service's Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office and Region 8 Regional Office.

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: