Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0097-E, dated April 23, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A53W005-14, dated April 22, 2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate could result in the loss of the door locking function and subsequently, complete loss of the cargo door in flight with the risk of rapid decompression. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0340; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-084-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 170 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $158,950, or $935 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16248), and proposed to supersede AD 2004-11-10, Amendment 39-13656 (69 FR 31872, June 8, 2004).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 16248, March 25, 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 16248, March 25, 2014).

We estimate that this AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours for the annual inspection of sailplanes equipped with the old version torque tube; 1 work-hour for the annual inspection of sailplanes equipped with the new version torque tube; and 5 work-hours for the 1,000-hour annual inspection of sailplanes equipped with the new version torque tube. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $875, for a cost of $1,300 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0180; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

Background

The “Harmonized System Classification” is a six-digit standardized numerical method of classifying traded products. Harmonized System numbers are used by customs authorities around the world to identify products for the application of duties and taxes. The United States has adopted the Harmonized System as the basis of both its export classification system, referred to as Schedule B, and its import classification system, called the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The first six digits of the commodity numbers for a product listed on the HTS and the Schedule B are identical to one another with respect to descriptions and codes.

Schedule B numbers are administered and used by the U.S. Commerce Department, Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division to collect and publish U.S. export statistics. Schedule B numbers are required to be reported in the Automated Export System (AES) for all export transactions originating in the United States. There is a Schedule B commodity number for every physical product, from paperclips to airplanes, that are exported from the United States to foreign countries. According to the introduction to the Schedule B, which provides for definitions of commonly-used terms and a guide to interpreting and using the Schedule B, the term “headings” refers to the article descriptions appearing in Schedule B at the four-digit level; the term “subheading” refers to any article description indented thereunder. A reference to “headings” also encompasses the subheadings indented thereunder. The Schedule B 2014 may be found at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/b/2014/index.html. There is no direct correlation between Schedule B commodity numbers and the Commerce Control List Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs).

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulates the export of unprocessed western red cedar, crude oil, and petroleum products (that were produced or derived from the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR) or became available for export as a result of an exchange of any NPR-produced or derived commodities) under the Export Administration Regulations' (EAR) short supply controls. A license is required for exports of these commodities to all destinations, including Canada.

For the convenience of exporters, BIS created Supplement No. 1 and Supplement No. 2 to part 754 in the EAR to illustrate the Schedule B commodity numbers that could apply to crude oil, petroleum products, and unprocessed western red cedar controlled under the EAR. The Schedule B numbers in Supplement No. 1 to part 754 (crude oil and petroleum products) were based on the 1994 version of the Schedule B of commodity classifications. The Schedule B numbers in Supplement No. 2 to part 754 (unprocessed western red cedar) were based on versions of the Schedule B from the 1980's. The current version applicable to all of these commodities is Schedule B 2014.

This rule updates the lists in the two supplements to remove obsolete descriptions and Schedule B commodity numbers and add relevant descriptions and Schedule B commodity numbers for these short supply commodities. This rule also clarifies the description of petroleum products in other sections of the EAR to ensure those references are current.

Supplement No. 1 to part 754 of the EAR contains a total of 43 Schedule B numbers, two for crude oil and 41 for petroleum products. Significant modifications to Schedule B numbers have taken place over the years. After twenty years, all Schedule B numbers, except one (2804.29.0010 for “Helium”) are now either obsolete or have undergone modifications to the commodity descriptions in the Schedule B. Specifically, the two numbers for crude oil and 22 numbers for petroleum products are obsolete, and the modifications have been made to the commodity descriptions in 18 numbers for petroleum products. This rule updates the Schedule B numbers and commodity descriptions in Supplement No. 1 of Part 754. The descriptions are derived from the 2014 Schedule B and the AES 2014 Export Concordance (December 30, 2013) (“AES 2014 Export Concordance”), http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/aes/documentlibrary/expaes.txt. The AES 2014 Export Concordance includes Schedule B numbers and commodity descriptions that reflect consolidations of descriptions that appear at the subheading level in the 2014 Schedule B. The footnote that provided a source for the table has been removed, and the information that was in the footnote has been incorporated into introductory text to the Supplement.

Included in the introduction chapter to the 2014 Schedule B are rules of interpretation, which provide information on how to read and interpret the Schedule B list. Also, there are Notes at the beginning of Chapter 27 of the 2014 Schedule B that pertain specifically to products in this chapter. For example, Note 6 under the Statistical Notes states, “In determining the relative weights of components of the mixtures provided for in subheading 2710.11.45 and 2710.19.45, naphtha and other petroleum derivatives which may be present in such mixtures as solvents shall be disregarded.” Therefore, it is important to read the rules of interpretation and all the notes at the beginning of chapter 27 that pertain to your products in order to properly classify your product.

Supplement No. 2 contains three Schedule B numbers, 200.3516, 200.2820, and 202.2840, for unprocessed western red cedar. As a result of significant modifications to Schedule B numbers that have taken place over the years, these three numbers are now obsolete. Additionally, the current commodity descriptions are incomplete as they only include western red cedar logs and timber, lumber (rough and containing wane), and lumber (dressed or worked, containing wane). This rule updates the three Schedule B numbers and commodity descriptions in Supplement No. 2 of Part 754. To determine if your Western Red Cedar (WRC) product requires a license, see § 754.4 of the EAR.

This rule replaces the three obsolete Schedule B numbers of unprocessed western red cedar, and adds five new numbers, for a total of eight Schedule B numbers drawn from the Schedule B 2014. The eight numbers are divided into two groups: wood in the rough and lumber. The accompanying commodity descriptions may have terms with single quotes, which indicate that a definition may be found in the notes below the table. The descriptions in this supplement were derived from the 2014 Schedule B and the AES 2014 Export Concordance. This rule also adds definitions for three terms, `treated,' `lumber,' and `rough,' that appear in commodity description listings in the Schedule B 2014, as Notes to Supplement No. 2. Including these definitions will help exporters better understand the commodity descriptions in the supplement.

If there are any discrepancies between the information in Supplement No. 2 and the information in the most current Schedule B, which is updated on an annual basis, you should use the most current Schedule B number in your Electronic Export Information filing in the Bureau of the Census's Automated Export System.

This rule also makes an administrative change to remove the Unit column in the table for Unprocessed Western Red Cedar in Supplement No. 2 to part 754 as “Unit” was removed from the Commerce Control List on January 6, 2014 (78 FR 61874).

This rule amends § 742.1(b)(1) by adding the word “certain” to the description of ECCN 1C983, because only natural gas liquids and other natural gas derivatives that were produced or derived from the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR) or became available for export as a result of an exchange of any NPR produced or derived commodities are controlled by the short supply reason for control in part 754 of the EAR. This rule also adds the word “unprocessed” to the description of ECCN 1C988, because only unprocessed western red cedar is controlled by the short supply reason for control in part 754 of the EAR.

This rule amends § 754.1 by revising subpart (b)(1)(iii) to remove the language “listed in Supplement No. 2 to this part.” This revision, which is also reflected in § 754.4, delinks the license requirement from the listings in Supplement No. 2 to part 754. This revision clarifies that exporters must consult § 754.4, not Supplement No. 2 to part 754, to determine the license requirements for unprocessed western red cedar products controlled under ECCN 1C988. Section 754.4 contains definitions of “unprocessed” western red cedar and other key terms that are relevant to the scope of the license requirements. The revision is consistent with the understanding that the Supplement No. 2 Schedule B listings are not exhaustive. The listings (and the Schedule B more generally) do not capture the full range of products that may meet the definition of “unprocessed western red cedar” for purposes of § 754.4 of the EAR.

This rule amends § 754.4 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a). The introductory text to paragraph (a) is amended to remove the language “listed in Supplement No. 2 to this part,” consistent with the revision made to § 754.1. A new sentence is added to reference and explain the revised listings in Supplement No. 2. An editorial change is also made to put in lower case the words “license exception” in the last sentence of the introductory text to paragraph (a).

This rule amends the heading of ECCN 1C988 by adding the word “unprocessed” to be more precise about the control. The reference to Supplement No. 2 to part 754 of the EAR is replaced by a reference to § 754.4 of the EAR, thereby clarifying that exporters should consult § 754.4 to determine the licensing requirements that apply to unprocessed western red cedar. The license requirement of ECCN 1C988 is based on the definitions and other information in § 754.4 of the EAR. The Related Definitions paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section of ECCN 1C988 is amended to add a reference to and description of Supplement No. 2 to part 754.

These clarifying changes do not alter or otherwise affect BIS's current practice with respect to the enforcement of the EAR's controls on unprocessed western red cedar.

Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2013, 78 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by the OMB under the following control numbers: 0694-0088 (Simplified Network Application Processing and Multipurpose Application Form).

This final rule would not increase public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, which authorizes, among other things, export license applications, because it is simply updating the Schedule B numbers and commodity descriptions for certain commodities in Supplement No. 1 of part 754 and making certain limited corrections to §§ 742.1, 754.1 and 754.4.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. The revisions made by this rule are administrative, not substantive, in nature and merely update the EAR to reflect changes to regulations referenced therein so that those references are harmonized with revisions that have been made to the Census Bureau's Schedule B 2014 publication, e.g., updating commodity descriptions, removing obsolete Schedule B Numbers, and adding new Schedule B numbers. The rule does not affect the rights and obligations of the public. Because these revisions are not substantive changes to the EAR, it is unnecessary to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. As stated above, these revisions do not alter any rights or obligations, but merely correct citations and definitions set forth in the EAR so that those references are harmonized with revisions that have been made to the Bureau of the Census' Schedule B 2014 publication, e.g., updating commodity descriptions, removing obsolete Schedule B Numbers, and adding new Schedule B numbers. The revisions are necessary to facilitate public understanding of the EAR's short supply controls on unprocessed western red cedar, crude oil, and petroleum products. Accordingly, no benefit would be gained by delaying this rule's effectiveness for 30 days.

Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

Accordingly, Parts 742, 754 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

On March 27, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations for Marine Events, Nanticoke River; Bivalve, MD” in the Federal Register (79 FR 17082). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) authorizes an agency to publish a rule less than 30 days before its effective date when the agency for good cause finds that waiting 30 days would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . As stated above, we published the NPRM on these special local regulations on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17082), and we received no comments on the proposed rule. Delaying this regulation's effective date for 30 days would be impracticable and would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. A special local regulation is in the public interest in making this a safe event. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Coastal Aquatics Swim Team Open Water Summer Shore Swim event.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

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

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced for only 4 1/2 hours; (2) the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation, yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary; (3) persons and vessels will be able to transit safely around the regulated area; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Nanticoke River encompassed within the special local regulations from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 29, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 an 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 special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. 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 100 as follows:

The Craigie Bridge has a vertical clearance of 15 feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles River Dam. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.591(e).

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a bridge closure to facilitate a public event, the July 4th Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular.

Under this temporary deviation, the Craigie Bridge may remain in the closed position from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2014. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at all times.

The Charles River supports seasonal recreational vessel traffic. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can be opened in the event of an emergency.

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 WSDOT requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the State Route 520/Evergreen Point Floating Bridge across Lake Washington at Seattle, WA. The requested deviation is necessary to accommodate safe movement of “Rock and Roll Run” event participants. This deviation allows the State Route 520/Evergreen Point Floating Bridge across Lake Washington at Seattle, WA to remain in the closed position and need not open for vessel traffic from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 21, 2014. Vessels which do not require bridge openings may continue to transit beneath the bridge during the closure period.

The Evergreen Point Floating Bridge provides three navigational openings for vessel passage, the movable floating span, subject to this closure, and two fixed navigational openings; one on the east end of the bridge and one on the west end. The fixed navigational opening on the east end of the bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 150 feet and a vertical clearance of 57 feet. The opening on the west end of the bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 170 feet and a vertical clearance of 45 feet. Vessels that are able to safely pass through the fixed navigational openings are allowed to do so during this closure period. Under normal conditions, during this time frame, the bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1049 which states the bridge shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. This deviation period is from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. June 21, 2014. The deviation allows the floating draw span of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge on Lake Washington to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 21, 2014. Waterway usage on Lake Washington ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridges' operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.

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

The Long Beach Bridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water, and 24 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

The Town of Hempstead Department of Public Safety, requested a bridge closure to facilitate a public event, the Town of Hempstead Annual Salute to Veterans Fireworks Display.

Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridge may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 12 a.m. on June 28, 2014, with a rain date of June 29, 2014. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at all times.

Reynolds Channel has commercial and recreational vessel traffic. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can be opened in the event of an emergency. No objections were received from the waterway users.

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.

On March 28, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation Hackensack River, at Jersey City, New Jersey” in the Federal Register (79 FR 17483). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The PATH Railroad Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.0, has a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.

The Hack-Freight Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.1, has a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.

The waterway users are commercial operators.

The owners of the bridges, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) and Conrail, submitted requests to the Coast Guard to operate the Conrail Hack-Freight Bridge from a remote location and to change the drawbridge operation for the PATH Bridge.

Under this final rule, Conrail shall operate its Hack-Freight Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.1, from a remote location, the Conrail Leigh Valley Bridge Office, at all times when a draw tender is not stationed at the bridge. A draw tender may be stationed at the bridge at various times when it is deemed necessary for safety purposes such as during times when bridge maintenance is being performed.

Conrail operates several other bridges from its Leigh Valley Bridge Office, the Conrail Bridge at mile 2.0, across the Rahway River and the Arthur Kill Bridge at mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill.

Under this final rule, the Coast Guard is also changing the drawbridge operation regulations for the PATH Railroad Bridge.

The owner of the PATH Railroad Bridge, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH), asked the Coast Guard to change the drawbridge operation schedule for its Path Railroad Bridge, to require at least a two hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times.

In addition, PATH requested that the PATH Railroad Bridge be allowed to remain in the closed position during time periods when commuter rail traffic is heaviest from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

PATH agreed to provide additional bridge openings during the commuter closure periods for commercial vessels, from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m., 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m., 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., upon a two hour advance notice, to help facilitate commercial vessel traffic. Notice may be provided by calling the number posted at the bridge.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this final rule.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We believe that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because the PATH Railroad Bridge provides adequate clearance for commercial vessels in the closed position and the commercial vessels will be able to get additional openings provided advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. Additionally, the Hack-Freight Bridge can be transited at all times but will be tended remotely.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 will have no effect on small entities for the following reason: The high vertical clearance of the PATH Railroad Bridge of 40 feet at mean high water should accommodate all present vessel traffic except deep draft. Additionally, vessels may transit the bridge at all other times with a two hour advance notice and can plan their trips accordingly during any closure periods. As for the Hack-Freight Bridge, vessels may transit the bridge at all times.

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 calls for no 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 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 have determined that it 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 an 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 Concerns 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The WSDOT requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The requested deviation is necessary to accommodate safe movement of “Rock and Roll Run” event participants. This deviation allows the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA to remain in the closed position and need not open for vessel traffic from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 21, 2014. Vessels which do not require bridge openings may continue to transit beneath the bridge during the closure period.

The Montlake Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge; vertical clearance referenced to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge opens on signal, subject to the list of exceptions provided in 33 CFR 117.1051(e). This deviation period is from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. June 21, 2014. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridges' operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. 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 because the Coast Guard received the application for a marine event on May 12, 2014, well short of the 135 day window required for a new marine event application. As such, it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations, and area newspapers.

On July 5, 2014, the town of Urbanna will host a fireworks display on the bank of Urbanna Creek in Saluda, VA. The fireworks debris fallout area will extend over the navigable waters of Urbanna Creek. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks displays, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted within 350 feet of the fireworks launch site.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of Urbanna Creek in Saluda, VA. The fireworks will be launched from shore in the vicinity of Rosegill Farm Airstrip. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within 350 feet of the fireworks launching location at position 37°38′09″ N, 076°34′03″ W. This safety zone will be established and enforced from 10:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2014. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for individuals responsible for launching the fireworks and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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. Although this regulation restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) mariners may transit the waters in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the Port or designated representative; and (iv) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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 term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of Urbanna Creek from 10:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2014.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration; and (ii) Before the enforcement period of July 5, 2014, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not affect 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 this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a safety zone for a fireworks display launch site and fallout area and is expected to have no impact on the water or environment. This zone is designed to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays. This rule is categorically 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 DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 because the final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until May 19, 2014. Delaying the effective date for comment would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the effected waterways of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and area newspapers.

On June 20, 2014, the North Carolina Bar Association will sponsor a fireworks display originating from the Battleship “North Carolina” parking lot on the Cape Fear River at latitude 34°14′11″ N longitude 077°56′57″ W. The fireworks debris fallout area will extend over the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, including accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted from transiting within the fireworks launch and fallout area.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River in Wilmington, NC. The regulated area of this safety zone includes all water of the Cape Fear River within a 300 yards radius of 34°14′11″ N longitude 077°56′57″ W latitude.

This safety zone will be established and enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on June 20, 2014. In the interest of public safety, general navigation within the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and 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. Although this regulation restricts access to a small segment of the Cape Fear River, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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 term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 in the Cape Fear River where fireworks events are being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will be enforced only during the fireworks display event that has been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the regulated area when it is safe to do so. In some cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the regulated area at various times, and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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 establishing a safety zone for a fireworks display launch site and fallout area and is expected to have no impact on the water or environment. This zone is designed to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays. 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 56.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 56 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to this document in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 written 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 because doing so will be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The enforcement of the safety zone will be brief in time and well-publicized, and the location is already used for other fireworks displays during the year as noted in 33 CFR 165.506(c). It is unnecessary to provide a comment period for the safety zone because the public is already aware of the impact that a limited duration safety zone has in the immediate area. Additionally, providing a comment period would be against the public interest because of the delay that providing for a comment period would cause. Delaying the public announcement of this safety zone would be detrimental to the protection of life and property because of how limited notice the public would receive about the safety zone. As a result, the public may not be aware of the safety zone and may be at risk for danger from falling debris and other hazards associated with fireworks in a marine environment. The Coast Guard received the applications for these two fireworks displays with short notice, both well after the specified deadline of 135 days prior to the event. As such, it is in the public interest to publish the final rule as soon as possible to provide for maximal advertisement of the rule. By removing the comment period, the rule will be published with much greater advanced notice, allowing the boating public to make plans to avoid the safety zone as needed.

Spectator vessels may gather nearby to view the fireworks displays. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Under provisions of 33 CFR 165.506, during the enforcement period, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 350 foot radius of the position: 37°-15′-47″ N/076°-01′-29″ W (NAD 1983), in the vicinity of Cape Charles, Virginia. This safety zone will be enforced on June 20, 2014 and August 2, 2014 between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times.

Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone during the time frame listed. The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice among the affected segments of the public. This will include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and 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. The primary impact of these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected waterways during the safety zone on the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Cape Charles, VA from 9:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on June 20, 2014 and August 2, 2014. Although these regulations prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Chesapeake Bay during these events, that restriction is limited in duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area.

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 term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in waters of the Chesapeake Bay during the outlined timeframe.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration, and (ii) before the enforcement period, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

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 an 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 the establishment of a safety zone. 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Push Beaver County Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 40.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 40 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Guyasuta Days Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 28.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 28 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to this document in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the IAL program is to support high-quality projects designed to develop and improve literacy skills for children and students from birth through 12th grade within the attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs and schools.

We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions for this program in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11363). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirement, and definitions.

There are differences between the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions and these final priorities, requirement, and definitions as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions, nine parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions.

We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities, requirement, and definitions since publication of the notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions follows.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we amend proposed priority 1 to require, as a minimum level of evidence, that projects be supported by evidence of promise rather than strong theory. The commenter explained that the strong theory level of evidence proposed in priority 1 appears to set a lower standard of evidence than was used in the previous competition, which required applicants to cite at least one study in support of the proposed project that meets the definition of “scientifically valid research.” The commenter also recommended that the Department look for stronger standards of evidence for all applicants.

Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the Department should encourage the use of strong standards of evidence in general. Because we found the term imprecise, we do not refer to “scientifically based research” in the priority. While an applicant to this program would now only need to provide evidence of strong theory in support of its proposed project, we think that this approach prepares the applicant to thoughtfully and successfully implement its project. Setting the minimum requirement of evidence at the strong theory level also allows for the most innovative project proposals because applicants are not restricted by a higher standard of evidence that would require some degree of replication of a previously executed approach.

Through selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, the Department can encourage the applicant to design a project evaluation that may help build on the level of evidence available for future projects. For example, if a project that uses strong theory is successful, the evaluation report that a grantee will prepare, as outlined in the selection criteria, could serve as sufficient evidence of promise for applicants to cite in support of future proposals. We take this approach in order to empower applicants to propose innovative ideas that, if successful, will broaden the base of available evidence in the field.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked that we identify each proposed priority as absolute, competitive, or invitational.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in learning the type of priorities that will be assigned in upcoming competitions. It is our practice, however, to specify the priority types for each competition in the notice inviting applications, not in a notice of proposed priorities or a notice of final priorities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended including as an eligible entity a regional education service agency (RESA), as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics. The commenter noted that in many locations, these agencies act as intermediary agents between education departments and high-need rural LEAs that may otherwise lack capacity to apply for Federal grants.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to include RESAs and other intermediary agencies as eligible applicants for this program; however, such entities generally already meet the definition of LEA included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Section 9101(26)(A) of the ESEA defines an “LEA” as an entity that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools, and section 9101(26)(D) of the ESEA specifically includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies under the term “LEA.”

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters recommended expanding the eligibility requirement to include high-need populations that are not served by high-need LEAs. One noted that some preschool sites served by national not-for-profit organizations (NNPs) may not fall within the attendance boundaries of a high-need LEA, yet may still be serving high-need children. The other commenter recommended including low-performing and unaccredited districts as eligible entities, and also expanding the target population to include students of families with incomes below the poverty line, but who attend schools in LEAs that do not meet the threshold of 25 percent of students from families with incomes below the poverty line.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations to consider expanding eligibility and the target population served. However, the Department must focus its limited resources on the areas of highest need. The eligibility requirement we have established is designed to ensure that IAL funds will reach those communities most in need.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we provide additional guidance regarding acceptable Census Bureau data sets for determining high-need LEAs, noting that the Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data set does not include children from birth through age four in its school district poverty estimates. The commenter also noted that the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) data set includes family poverty information for students birth through age four.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation for clarification concerning the acceptable Census Bureau data set for determining target population eligibility. Although we recognize that the SAIPE for school districts lacks specific information for children under age five, at this time SAIPE are the most satisfactory data available from the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of this program.

While we agree that poverty data for birth through age four would be useful for determining eligibility for this program, the Census Bureau's model-based SAIPE data provide single-year estimates for students aged 5-17 that are more reflective of current conditions than are the multi-year survey estimates provided by ACS data. That is, SAIPE methodology combines ACS estimates with other data sources to provide more timely, precise, and stable estimates than the five-year ACS estimates alone. Significantly, SAIPE data incorporate “grade relevance,” whereas ACS estimates do not. For areas with small populations, SAIPE data contain less uncertainty and have lower error variance than ACS estimates. SAIPE data therefore provide more accurate representations of student poverty information than ACS data.

A list of high-need LEAs, by State, that are eligible for IAL funding in FY 2014 will be available at the program Web site ( http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovapproaches-literacy/index.html ) when this notice and the notice inviting applications are published.

Although we do not support using a different source of data for determining eligibility under this program, we do believe a modification to the definition of “high-need LEA” is appropriate. In order to ensure the definition of “high-need LEA” is consistent with the SAIPE data used to determine eligibility, we believe that we should change the reference from “geographic area” to “school attendance area” and adjust the age range from 0-17 to 5-17.

Also, we note that SAIPE are data used under section 1124(c)(3) of Title I of the ESEA for the purpose of making allocations and that not all LEAs are listed on the Census Bureau's lists. Therefore, we also clarify that States determine eligibility status for LEAs that are not listed with SAIPE data (e.g., charter school LEAs, State-administered schools, and regional service agencies), and we provide information about how States may verify the elegibility of such LEAs.

Changes: We have revised the definition of a “high-need LEA.” Under the revised definition, a “high-need LEA” is one in which at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the “school attendance area” of the LEA (rather than “geographic area”) are from families with incomes below the poverty line based on the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year (Census list). In addition, we added language to the definition of a “high-need LEA” addressing how to determine if an LEA that is not on the Census list, such as a charter school LEA, is a “high-need LEA.” Such an LEA is considered a “high-need LEA” if the State educational agency (SEA) determines, consistent with the manner in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.

Also, based on the revised definition of “high-need LEA,” we have made a corresponding technical change to Proposed Priority 1 to delete the phrase “within attendance boundaries” because the revised definition of “high-need LEA” now contemplates LEAs (such as charter school LEAs) that may draw students from beyond attendance boundaries.

Comment: One commenter recommended broadening the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures to include reporting on children birth through 12th grade, noting that the current measures exclude reporting for children younger than age four, students who are in kindergarten, and students in grades four and five.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to broaden GPRA reporting measures for this program. However, we intend the GPRA measures for this program to provide an overview of program performance rather than to assess performance at the level of each age or grade-level served. Given the variety of projects possible under this program, we believe that applicants are best equipped to develop detailed performance measures that address the goals and objectives unique to individual projects. We note that although GPRA reporting is not required for projects to which GPRA reporting measures do not apply, the Department will be able to collect data on progress for children younger than age four, students in kindergarten, and students in grades four and five from project-specific performance measures developed as part of the grantees' local evaluation design.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the onus to coordinate with school libraries should be placed on LEAs and NNPs, rather than requiring school libraries to coordinate with LEAs and NNPs. The commenter indicated that this change would ensure better consistency with the guiding language from S. Rep. 113-17 and the Federal grantmaking process.

Discussion: We agree that placing the onus on LEAs and NNPs, rather than on school libraries, to coordinate resources in developing IAL proposals will ensure better consistency with the cited report language and the Federal grantmaking process.

Changes: We have revised the eligibility requirement by adding language to indicate that LEAs and NNPs must coordinate with school libraries in developing project proposals.

Comment: One commenter recommended that current IAL grantees who apply for IAL funds in future competitions should be permitted to continue serving the same populations.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. However, proposing to serve the same populations that were served in a previous award is already allowable and does not disqualify an applicant from receiving funds in a new award, provided the applicant meets the eligibility requirements of the program.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked that funding be directed toward initiatives that include cross-sector literacy and parental engagement programs, as well as those operating outside of traditional education settings, including within the healthcare infrastructure.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we direct funding toward cross-sector and non-traditional settings; however, the types of projects the commenter described are already possible under this program because there are no limitations on the locations at which services can be provided or the partners a grantee may choose. Additionally, we do not want to specify in this manner the types of projects that an applicant may propose, as we wish to maximize flexibility for applicants seeking to develop innovative project proposals.

Changes: None.

To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:

(a) A description of the proposed book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy skills of children and students by one or more of the following—

(1) Promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;

(2) developing and improving students' reading ability;

(3) motivating older children to read; and

(4) teaching children and students to read.

(b) the age or grade spans of children and students from birth through 12th grade to be served.

(c) a detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information submitted as evidence of strong theory); and

(d)(i) a description of how the proposed project is supported by strong theory; and

(ii) the corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or both, to students served by a rural LEA (as defined in this notice).

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . 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)).

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education establishes the following requirement for this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.

Eligibility: To be considered for an award under this competition, an applicant must:

(a) Be one of the following:

(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice);

(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;

(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;

(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; or

(5) A consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs that serve children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs.

(b) Coordinate with school libraries in developing project proposals.

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education establishes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect:

College- and career-ready standards means content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. A State's college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level.

Comprehensive statewide literacy plan means a plan (which may be a component or modification of the plan submitted under the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy formula grant program, CFDA 84.371B) that addresses the literacy and language needs of children from birth through 12th grade, including English learners and students with disabilities; aligns literacy policies, resources, and practices; contains clear instructional goals; and sets high expectations for all students and student subgroups.

High-need local educational agency (High-need LEA) means—

(i) Except for LEAs referenced in paragraph (ii), an LEA in which at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the school attendance area of the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year (Census list).

(ii) For an LEA that is not included on the Census list, such as a charter school LEA, an LEA for which the State educational agency (SEA) determines, consistent with the manner described under section 1124(c) of the ESEA in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.

National not-for-profit (NNP) organization means an agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity. In addition, it means, for the purposes of this program, an organization of national scope that is supported by staff or affiliates at the State and local levels, who may include volunteers, and that has a demonstrated history of effectively developing and implementing literacy activities.

Rural local educational agency (Rural LEA) means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA at the time of application.

Universal design for learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (i) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (ii) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are English learners.

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, requirement, and definitions 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.

I. Background

On March 7, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of removing from the Pennsylvania SIP the Commonwealth's PFC regulations, formerly located at 25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101-130.108, relating to the control of evaporative emissions from new and in-use PFCs. The Commonwealth requested the removal of Pennsylvania's state-specific regulations because they have been superseded by new, more stringent Federal PFC regulations, codified at 40 CFR 59.600-59.699.

The Commonwealth's PFC regulations were published October 5, 2002 (32 Pa.B. 4819) and limited emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere from the use of PFCs designed to hold gasoline. The regulations restricted the sale, supply, offer for sale, and manufacture of PFCs and spouts for sale and for use in the Commonwealth on or after January 1, 2003. The regulations were part of the Commonwealth's plan to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone since VOCs are a precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone, and high concentrations of ground-level ozone are a serious public health and welfare threat. The PFC regulations were approved as a SIP revision by EPA on December 8, 2004. 69 FR 70893. Following the regulations' approval into the Pennsylvania SIP, the PFC regulations were included as a VOC control measure in Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the Attainment Demonstration for the Philadelphia Area Ozone Nonattainment Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On February 26, 2007, EPA promulgated Federal PFC requirements (72 FR 8428), which were codified at 40 CFR 59.600-59.699 and became effective nationwide beginning January 1, 2009. The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) subsequently amended 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130 (relating to standards for products) by publishing the repeal of the PFC regulations (25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101-130.108) on July 14, 2012 (42 Pa.B. 4463). The Federal PFC regulations aim to reduce nationwide hydrocarbon emissions from containers due to evaporation, permeation, and spillage and are more stringent than those found in the Pennsylvania regulations.

Pennsylvania compared requirements of the Commonwealth's former PFC regulations with the Federal PFC requirements (Table 1). Each of the Federal requirements is equally as stringent as, or more stringent than, the Commonwealth's PFC requirements and achieve greater emission reductions than Pennsylvania's PFC regulations:

• Pennsylvania's regulations applied only to PFCs for gasoline fuels whereas the Federal regulations apply to portable containers for diesel and kerosene as well as for gasoline fuels.

• Pennsylvania's regulations required automatic shut-off spouts whereas the Federal regulations do not require automatic shut-off spouts. In 72 FR 8428, 8500, EPA notes that automatic shut-off spouts actually increase spillage and emissions due to the wide variety of fill-hole designs on the receiving fuel tanks, resulting in the auto shut-off spouts not working well with a variety of equipment types.

• The Federal permeation and evaporation standard for PFCs of less than 0.3 grams hydrocarbons per gallon of fuel per day is 25 percent more stringent than the permeation standard of less than 0.4 grams per gallon of gasoline per day in Pennsylvania's regulations.

• Pennsylvania's regulations did not prevent cross state border sales of non-compliant PFCs, whereas the Federal requirements apply to all PFCs manufactured in or imported into the United States for use in the United States beginning January 1, 2009. This reduces the opportunity for cross-state border sales of non-compliant PFCs.

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator may not approve a revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA finds Pennsylvania has demonstrated that repealing the Commonwealth's regulatory requirements and relying on the Federal requirements for PFCs is not contrary to section 110(l) by calculating and comparing estimated statewide VOC emissions resulting from both the Commonwealth and Federal PFC regulations for the years 2002, 2009, and 2018 (Table 2). A more detailed description of Pennsylvania's methodology for calculating VOC emissions and EPA's evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) with Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0298 prepared in support of this rulemaking action.

EPA finds the repeal of the provisions set forth in 25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101-130.108 and removal from the Pennsylvania SIP do not negatively affect ozone air quality because the more stringent Federal PFC requirements at 40 CFR 59.600-59.699 supersede the Commonwealth's regulations. The reductions of VOC emissions achieved through the Commonwealth's PFC regulations will be maintained and likely exceeded by the VOC emission reductions achieved through the Federal PFC requirements because the Federal regulations are more stringent.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP which remove the Commonwealth's PFC regulations because it is expected that reliance on the more stringent Federal PFC standards will ensure that emission reductions equivalent to or greater than those in the repealed Pennsylvania PFC regulations will continue to be achieved in the Commonwealth. Accordingly, it is expected that this SIP revision will not have a negative impact on the emission reductions claimed in the Pennsylvania SIP nor on Pennsylvania's attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Thus, EPA can approve this revision in compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on August 18, 2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 18, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking.

This rulemaking action approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision, which involves removing the Commonwealth's PFC regulations because they are being superseded with the Federal PFC regulations, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21421), EPA proposed to approve revisions to PM rules submitted on April 27, 2012, into the Indiana SIP. These revisions add PM control requirements for coating operations. The other primary revisions provide PM limit exemptions for coating operations that produce minimal PM emissions. The remaining modifications are clerical revisions that increase the lucidity of the rules without altering the PM limits.

Article 6 of 326 IAC contains Indiana's PM rules. Article 6.5 of 326 IAC contains statewide PM emission limitations except for Lake County and Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM emission limits for Lake County sources.

Specifically, EPA proposed to approve 326 IAC 6-3-1(c), 326 IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, 326 IAC 6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6. EPA also proposed to take no action on 326 IAC 6-3-1(b). Detail on each section including EPA's analysis is found in section III of the proposed rule.

EPA received no comments during the public comment period. EPA is proceeding with approving the sections and taking no action on a section as proposed on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21421).

EPA is approving revisions to PM rules Indiana submitted on April 27, 2012. Specifically, EPA is approving 326 IAC 6-3-1(c), 326 IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, 326 IAC 6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6 into the Indiana SIP. EPA is taking no action on 326 IAC 6-3-1(b).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 18, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On February 17, 2014, the State of Delaware submitted a formal SIP revision amending 7 Del. Admin. Code 1103, “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” These amendments will bring the regulatory standards for SO 2 , ozone, NO 2 , lead, and PM up to date with current Federal requirements.

The CAA specifies that EPA must reevaluate the appropriateness of each of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every five years. As part of the process, EPA reviewed the latest health-based research and determined that several NAAQS revisions were necessary to protect public health and welfare.

EPA revised the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection for children and other at-risk populations against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects. These standards are based on the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration. EPA promulgated these NAAQS for ozone on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436).

EPA revised the primary lead standard to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) to improve health protection for at-risk groups, especially children. The secondary standard was also revised to 0.15 µg/m 3 to afford increased protection for the environment. EPA promulgated these primary and secondary NAAQS for lead on November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964).

EPA established the primary 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520). This revised standard will improve public health protection, especially for children, the elderly, and people with asthma. EPA is retaining the current secondary 3-hour SO 2 NAAQS of 0.5 ppm.

EPA established the 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS at a level of 100 ppb, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474). EPA is retaining the current primary and secondary annual average NO 2 NAAQS of 53 ppb.

With regard to the primary (health-based) standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), EPA revised the annual PM 2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m 3 and retaining the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m 3 , on January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086). EPA also retained the existing 24-hour coarse particle (PM 10 ) primary and secondary standards set at a level of 150 μg/m 3 .

The SIP revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) on February 17, 2014, consists of amendments to 7 Del Admin. Code 1103, which includes the revised ambient air quality standards for SO 2 , ozone, NO 2 , lead, and PM. The SIP revision is consistent with the current NAAQS. The SIP revision also includes amendments to the definitions of primary and secondary air quality standards. In addition, the SIP revision includes updated test methods and emission standards in order to be up to date with current Federal requirements.

EPA is approving the SIP revision pertaining to the amendments of Delaware's ambient air quality standards since the SIP revision is consistent with the NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on August 18, 2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 18, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

This action, pertaining to the amendments of Delaware's ambient air quality standards, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93) was enacted. Section 105 of PAMA extends changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals for an additional year, through March 31, 2015, that is, through the first 6 months of fiscal year (FY) 2015. Section 106 of PAMA extends the Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (MDH) program for an additional year, through March 31, 2015, that is, through the first 6 months of FY 2015. This document addresses payment for these programs only for the second half of FY 2014 (April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014). We proposed to implement the statutory changes for the first half of FY 2015 (October 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015) in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule that appeared in the May 15, 2014 Federal Register .

Section 1886(d)(12) of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for an additional payment to qualifying low-volume hospitals that are paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems (IPPS) beginning in FY 2005. Sections 3125 and 10314 of the Affordable Care Act provided for a temporary change in the low-volume hospital payment policy for FYs 2011 and 2012. Section 605 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) extended, for FY 2013, the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act. Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 extended, for the first 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, through March 31, 2014), the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy originally provided for by the Affordable Care Act and extended through subsequent legislation.

We addressed the extension of the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment policy through March 31, 2014 under the Pathway for SGR Reform Act in an interim final rule with comment period (IFC) that appeared in the March 18, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 15022 through 15025) (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2014 IPPS IFC). In the FY 2014 IPPS IFC, we also amended the regulations at 42 CFR 412.101 to reflect the extension of the temporary changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals through March 31, 2014 in accordance with section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act.

For FYs 2011 and 2012, sections 3125 and 10314 of the Affordable Care Act expanded the definition of low-volume hospital and modified the methodology for determining the payment adjustment for hospitals meeting that definition. Specifically, the provisions of the Affordable Care Act amended the qualifying criteria for low-volume hospitals under section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act to specify that, for FYs 2011 and 2012, a hospital qualifies as a low-volume hospital if it is more than 15 road miles from another subsection (d) hospital and has less than 1,600 discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under Part A during the fiscal year. In addition, section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, provides that the low-volume hospital payment adjustment (that is, the percentage increase) is to be determined “using a continuous linear sliding scale ranging from 25 percent for low-volume hospitals with 200 or fewer discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under Part A in the fiscal year to 0 percent for low-volume hospitals with greater than 1,600 discharges of such individuals in the fiscal year.” We revised the regulations at 42 CFR 412.101 to reflect the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals according to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50238 through 50275 and 50414). In addition, we also defined, at § 412.101(a), the term “road miles” to mean “miles” as defined at § 412.92(c)(1), and clarified existing regulations that a hospital must continue to qualify as a low-volume hospital in order to receive the payment adjustment in that year (that is, it is not based on a one-time qualification).

Section 605 of the ATRA extended the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act for FY 2013, that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2013. We announced the extension of the Affordable Care Act amendments to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment requirements under section 1886(d)(12) of the Act for FY 2013 pursuant to section 605 of the ATRA in a notice of extension that appeared in the March 7, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 14689 through 14694).

Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extended, for the first 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, through March 31, 2014), the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy originally provided by the Affordable Care Act. In the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15022 through 15025), we implemented the extension of the Affordable Care Act amendments to the low-volume hospital payment policy through March 31, 2014 under the Pathway for SGR Reform Act. In that IFC, we also amended the regulations at 42 CFR 412.101 to reflect the extension of the temporary changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals through March 31, 2014.

To implement the extension of the temporary change in the low-volume hospital payment policy through the first half of FY 2014 (that is, for discharges occurring through March 31, 2014), in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC we updated the discharge data source used to identify qualifying low-volume hospitals and calculate the payment adjustment (percentage increase) for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014. Specifically, for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014, consistent with our historical policy, qualifying low-volume hospitals and their payment adjustment were determined using Medicare discharge data from the March 2013 update of the FY 2012 MedPAR file, as these data were the most recent data available at the time of the development of the FY 2014 payment rates and factors established in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Table 14 of the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (which is available only through the Internet on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html ) lists the hospitals with fewer than 1,600 Medicare discharges based on that Medicare discharge data and their potential FY 2014 low-volume payment adjustment (for hospitals that also meet the mileage criterion specified at 42 CFR 412.101(b)(2)(ii)).

Similar to our previously established procedure, in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC we implemented the following procedure for a hospital to request low-volume hospital status for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014. In order for the applicable low-volume percentage increase to be applied to payments for its discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2013 (that is, the beginning of FY 2014), a hospital must have made its request for low-volume hospital status in writing and this request must have been received by its Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) no later than March 31, 2014. Requests for low-volume hospital status for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014 that were received by the MAC after March 31, 2014 were to be processed by the MAC; however, the hospital would not be eligible to have the low-volume hospital payment adjustment at § 412.101(c)(2) applied to its FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014. We also explained that the low-volume hospital payment adjustment at § 412.101(c)(2) would not be prospectively applied in determining payments for the hospital's FY 2014 discharges, because, at that time, beginning on April 1, 2014, the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act would have expired and the low-volume hospital definition and payment methodology would have reverted back to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act. If the hospital would have otherwise met the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital under the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital policy, the MAC was to notify the hospital that, although the hospital met the low-volume hospital criteria set forth at § 412.101(b)(2)(ii) and would have had low-volume hospital status within 30 days from the date of the determination, the hospital did not meet the criteria for low-volume hospital status applicable for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 at that time (79 FR 15022 through 15025).

Section 105 of the PAMA (Pub. L. 113-93) extends, for an additional year (that is, through March 31, 2015), the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act and extended through FY 2013 by the ATRA and the first half of FY 2014 by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act. Prior to the enactment of the PAMA, beginning with discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014, the low-volume hospital definition and payment adjustment methodology was to return to the policy established under statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act as extended by subsequent legislation. Section 105 of the PAMA extends the Affordable Care Act amendments to the low-volume hospital payment policy by amending sections 1886(d)(12)(B), (C)(i), and (D) of the Act. Specifically, section 105 of the PAMA amends section 1886(d)(12)(B) of the Act by striking “in the portion of fiscal year 2014 beginning on April 1, 2014, fiscal year 2015, and subsequent fiscal years” and inserting “in fiscal year 2015 (beginning on April 1, 2015), fiscal year 2016, and subsequent fiscal years”; amends section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) by striking “fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before” and inserting “fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and fiscal year 2015 (before April 1, 2015),” each place it appears; and amends section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act by striking “fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before April 1, 2014,” and inserting “fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and fiscal year 2015 (before April 1, 2015),”.

In the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (79 FR 28090 through 28092), we proposed to implement the extension of the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment policy for the first half of FY 2015 and stated our intent to address the extension of those changes for the second half of FY 2014 (that is, from April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014) as provided for by the PAMA in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. In that proposed rule, we also proposed to make conforming changes to the existing regulations text at § 412.101 to reflect the extension of the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment methodology for low-volume hospitals through the first half of FY 2015 (that is, through March 31, 2015) in accordance with section 105 of the PAMA. Specifically, we proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d) of § 412.101. Under these proposed changes to § 412.101, beginning with FY 2015 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2015, consistent with section 1886(d)(12) of the Act, as amended, the low volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment methodology would revert to that which was in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act and subsequent legislation (that is, the low-volume hospital payment policy in effect for FYs 2005 through 2010).

To implement the extension of the temporary change in the low-volume hospital payment policy for the last 6 months of FY 2014 provided for by the PAMA, we are using the same data source to identify qualifying low-volume hospitals and calculate the payment adjustment (percentage increase) that was used to identify qualifying low-volume hospitals and calculate the payment adjustment for discharges that occurred during the first half of FY 2014 (that is, FY 2012 Medicare discharge data from the March 2013 update of the MedPAR files), as these data were the most recent data available at the time of the development of the FY 2014 payment rates and factors established in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. This is consistent with our policy at § 412.101(b)(2)(ii), which states that a hospital's Medicare discharges from the most recently available MedPAR data, as determined by CMS, are used to determine if the hospital meets the discharge criteria to receive the low-volume payment adjustment in the current year. Accordingly, in Table 14 of this document (which is available only through the Internet on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/01_overview.asp ), we are providing the list of the subsection (d) hospitals with fewer than 1,600 Medicare discharges based on the March 2013 update of the FY 2012 MedPAR files and their FY 2014 low-volume payment adjustment, if eligible (Table 14 was originally made available in connection with the FY 2014 IPPS IFC that appeared in the March 18, 2014 Federal Register ). We note that the list of hospitals with fewer than 1,600 Medicare discharges in Table 14 does not reflect whether or not the hospital meets the mileage criterion. A hospital also must be located more than 15 road miles from any other subsection (d) hospital in order to qualify for a low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014.

A hospital that qualified for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for its FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 does not need to notify its MAC and will continue to receive the applicable low-volume hospital payment adjustment for its FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014, without reapplying, provided it continues to meet the mileage criterion (that is, the hospital continues to be located more than 15 road miles from any other subsection (d) hospital).

For a hospital that did not qualify for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for its FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, in order to receive a low-volume hospital payment adjustment under § 412.101, consistent with our previously established procedure, we are continuing to require a hospital to notify and provide documentation to its MAC that it meets the mileage criterion. Specifically, the hospital must make its request for low-volume hospital status in writing to its MAC and provide documentation that it meets the mileage criterion, so that the applicable low-volume percentage increase is applied to payments for its discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014. This written request must be received by its MAC no later than June 30, 2014 in order for the applicable low-volume percentage increase to be applied to payments for the hospital's discharges beginning on or after April 1, 2014. In addition, a hospital that missed the request deadline for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014 in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC but qualified for the low-volume payment adjustment in FY 2013 may receive a low-volume payment adjustment for its FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 without reapplying if it continues to meet the Medicare discharge criterion, based on the March 2013 update of the FY 2012 MedPAR data (shown in Table 14), and the mileage criterion. However, the hospital must send written verification that is received by its MAC no later than June 30, 2014, that it continues meet the mileage criterion, that is, it is located more than 15 miles from any other subsection (d) hospital. This procedure is similar to the procedures we used to implement prior extensions of the Affordable Care Act amendments to the low-volume hospital payment policy in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15024 through 150025) and the FY 2013 IPPS notice of extension (78 FR 14689).

For requests for low-volume hospital status for FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 that are received by the MAC after June 30, 2014, if the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC will apply the applicable low-volume adjustment in determining payments to the hospital's FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 prospectively effective within 30 days of the date of the MAC's low-volume status determination. This procedure is similar to the policy we established for a hospital to request low-volume hospital status for FY 2013 in the FY 2013 IPPS notice of extension (78 FR 14689), as well as for FYs 2011 and 2012 in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50274 through 50275) and the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51680), respectively.

The use of a Web-based mapping tool, such as MapQuest, as part of documenting that the hospital meets the mileage criterion for low-volume hospitals, is acceptable. The MAC will determine if the information submitted by the hospital, such as the name and street address of the nearest hospitals, location on a map, and distance (in road miles, as defined in the regulations at § 412.101(a)) from the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status, is sufficient to document that the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status meets the mileage criterion. The MAC may follow up with the hospital to obtain additional necessary information to determine whether or not the hospital meets the low-volume hospital mileage criterion. In addition, the MAC will refer to the hospital's Medicare discharge data determined by CMS (as provided in Table 14, which is available only through the Internet on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/01_overview.asp ) to determine whether or not the hospital meets the discharge criterion, and the amount of the payment adjustment for FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014, once it is determined that the mileage criterion has been met. The Medicare discharge data shown in Table 14, as well as the Medicare discharge data for all subsection (d) hospitals with claims in the March 2013 update of the FY 2012 MedPAR file, is also available on the CMS Web site for hospitals to view the count of their Medicare discharges. The data can be used to help hospitals decide whether or not to apply for low-volume hospital status.

Program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal. As stated previously, we proposed to make conforming changes to the existing regulations text at § 412.101 to reflect the extension of the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment methodology for low-volume hospitals through the first half of FY 2015 (that is, through March 31, 2015) in accordance with section 105 of the PAMA.

Section 1885(d)(5)(G) of the Act provides special payment protections, under the IPPS, to Medicare-dependent, small rural hospitals (MDHs). (For additional information on the MDH program and the payment methodology, we refer readers to the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51683 through 51684). As we discussed in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50287) and in the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51683 through 51684), section 3124 of the Affordable Care Act extended the expiration of the MDH program from the end of FY 2011 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2011) to the end of FY 2012 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2012). Under prior law, as specified in section 5003(a) of Pub. L. 109-171 (DRA 2005), the MDH program was to be in effect through the end of FY 2011 only.

Since the extension of the MDH program through FY 2012 provided by section 3124 of the ACA, the MDH program has been further extended multiple times. First, section 606 of the ATRA extended the MDH program through FY 2013 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2013). (For additional information on the extension of the MDH program for FY 2013 pursuant to section 606 of the ATRA, see the notice of extension that appeared in the March 7, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 14691 through 14692).) Second, section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 extended the MDH program through the first half of FY 2014 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2014). In the FY 2014 IPPS IFC, we discussed the 6-month extension of the MDH program from October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 provided by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (79 FR 15025 through 15027). In that IFC, we explained how providers may be affected by this extension of the program and described the steps to reapply for MDH status for FY 2014, as applicable. Generally, a provider that was classified as an MDH as of September 30, 2013 was reinstated as an MDH effective October 1, 2013, with no need to reapply for MDH classification. However, if the MDH had classified as a sole community hospital (SCH) or cancelled its rural classification under § 412.103(g) effective on or after October 1, 2013, the effective date of MDH status may not be retroactive to October 1, 2013.

Lastly, and under current law, section 106 of the PAMA provides for a 1-year extension of the MDH program effective from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015. Specifically, section 106 of the PAMA amended sections 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) and 1886(d)(5)(G)(ii)(II) of the Act by striking “April 1, 2014” and inserting “April 1, 2015”. Section 106 of the PAMA also made conforming amendments to sections 1886(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1886(b)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act. We note that because the extension provided by section 106 of the PAMA spans 2 fiscal years, that is, FY 2014 and FY 2015, we only address the 6-month extension in FY 2014 in this document. The extension of the MDH program through the first half of FY 2015 was addressed in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (79 FR 28104 through 28105), where we also proposed to make the conforming changes to the regulations at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) to reflect the statutory extension of the MDH program through the first half FY 2015 as provided by section 106 of the PAMA.

Prior to the enactment of the PAMA, under section 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act of 2013, the MDH program authorized by section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act was set to expire midway through FY 2014 (that is, March 31, 2014). Section 106 of the PAMA amended sections 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) and 1886(d)(5)(G)(ii)(II) of the Act to provide for an additional 1-year extension of the MDH program, effective from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. Section 106 of the PAMA also made conforming amendments to sections 1886(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1886(b)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act.

As noted previously, this document addresses the portion of the MDH program extension that includes the last 6 months of FY 2014 as provided by section 106 of PAMA. Consistent with our implementation of previous MDH extensions (see 79 FR 15025 through 15027 and 78 FR 14691 through 14692), generally, providers that were classified as MDHs as of the anticipated expiration of the MDH provision (that is, as of March 31, 2014) will be reinstated as MDHs effective April 1, 2014 with no need to reapply for MDH classification. However, in the following two situations, the effective date of MDH status may not be retroactive to April 1, 2014.

Our regulations at § 412.92(b)(2)(v) would have permitted an MDH that applied for reclassification as an SCH by March 1, 2014 to have such status be effective on April 1, 2014. MDHs that applied by the March 1, 2014 deadline and were approved for SCH classification received SCH status effective April 1, 2014. Hospitals that applied for SCH status after the March 1, 2014 SCH application deadline would have been subject to the usual effective date for SCH classification, that is, 30 days after the date of CMS' written notification of approval, resulting in an effective date of SCH status after April 1, 2014.

In order to be reclassified as an MDH, these hospitals must first cancel their SCH status according to § 412.92(b)(4), because a hospital cannot be both an SCH and an MDH, and then reapply and be approved for MDH status under § 412.108(b). Under § 412.92(b)(4), a hospital's cancellation of its SCH classification becomes effective no later than 30 days after the date the hospital submits its request. Under § 412.108(b)(3), the Medicare contractor will make a determination regarding whether a hospital meets the criteria for MDH status and notify the hospital within 90 days from the date that it receives the hospital's request and all of the required documentation. Under § 412.108(b)(4), a determination of MDH status made by the Medicare contractor is effective 30 days after the date the fiscal intermediary ( Note: fiscal intermediaries have been replaced by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs)) provides written notification to the hospital.

One of the criteria to be classified as an MDH is that the hospital must be located in a rural area. To qualify for MDH status, some MDHs reclassified from an urban to a rural hospital designation, under the regulations at § 412.103(b). With the anticipated March 31, 2014 expiration of the MDH provision prior to the enactment of the PAMA, some of these providers may have requested a cancellation of their rural classification. Therefore, in order to qualify for MDH status, these hospitals must again request to be reclassified as rural under § 412.103(b) and must also reapply for MDH status under § 412.108(b).

As noted previously, under § 412.108(b)(3), the Medicare contractor will make a determination regarding whether a hospital meets the criteria for MDH status and notify the hospital within 90 days from the date that it receives the hospital's request and all of the required documentation. Under § 412.108(b)(4), a determination of MDH status made by the Medicare contractor is effective 30 days after the date the fiscal intermediary (MAC) provides written notification to the hospital.

Any provider that falls within either of the two exceptions listed previously may not have its MDH status automatically reinstated effective April 1, 2014. That is, if a provider reclassified to SCH status or cancelled its rural status effective April 1, 2014, its MDH status will not be retroactive to April 1, 2014, but will instead be applied prospectively, based on the date the hospital is notified that it again meets the requirements for MDH status, in accordance with § 412.108(b)(4), after the hospital reapplies for MDH status. Once granted, this MDH status will remain in effect through March 31, 2015, subject to the requirements at § 412.108. However, if a provider reclassified to SCH status or cancelled its rural status effective on a date later than April 1, 2014, MDH status will be reinstated effective from April 1, 2014, but will end on the date on which the provider changed its status to an SCH or cancelled its rural status. Those hospitals may also reapply for MDH status to be effective again 30 days from the date the hospital is notified of the determination, in accordance with § 412.108(b)(4). Once granted, this status will remain in effect through March 31, 2015 subject to the requirements at § 412.108. Providers that fall within either of the two exceptions, in order to reclassify as an MDH, will have to reapply for MDH status according to the classification procedures in 42 CFR 412.108(b). Specifically, the regulations at § 412.108(b) require the following:

• The hospital submit a written request along with qualifying documentation to its contractor to be considered for MDH status.

• The contractor make its determination and notify the hospital within 90 days from the date that it receives the request for MDH classification and all required documentation.

• The determination of MDH status be effective 30 days after the date of the contractor's written notification to the hospital.

The following are examples of various scenarios that illustrate how and when MDH status under section 106 of the PAMA will be determined for hospitals that were MDHs as of the anticipated March 31, 2014 expiration of the MDH program:

Finally, we note that hospitals continue to be bound by § 412.108(b)(4)(i) through (iii) to report a change in the circumstances under which the status was approved. Thus, if a hospital's MDH status has been extended and it no longer meets the requirements for MDH status, it is required under § 412.108(b)(4)(i) through (iii) to make such a report to its MAC. Additionally, under the regulations at § 412.108(b)(5), Medicare contractors are required to evaluate on an ongoing basis whether or not a hospital continues to qualify for MDH status.

As noted previously, we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulations at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) to reflect the statutory extension of the MDH program through March 31, 2015 as provided by section 106 of the PAMA in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (79 FR 28104 through 28105). Program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal. A provider affected by the MDH program extension will receive a notice from its MAC detailing its status in light of the MDH program extension.

We also note that the same approach for the additional payment for uncompensated care under § 412.106(g) discussed in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15027) will apply in determining MDH payments for FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014. That is, a pro rata share of the uncompensated care payment amount for that period will be included as part of the Federal rate payment in the comparison of payments under the hospital-specific rate and the Federal rate. Therefore, in making this comparison at cost report settlement, we will include the pro rata share of the uncompensated care payment amount that reflects the period of time the hospital was paid under the MDH program for its FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 and before September 30, 2014. This pro rata share will be determined based on the proportion of the applicable Federal fiscal year that is included in that cost reporting period. (For additional information on our implementation of the additional payment for uncompensated care under § 412.106(g), refer to the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50620 through 50647) and the interim final rule with comment period titled “FY 2014 IPPS Changes to Certain Cost Reporting Procedures Related to Disproportionate Share Hospital Uncompensated Care Payments” that appeared in the October 3, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 61191 through 61194).)

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program at section 1886(q) of the Act requires the Secretary to reduce payments to applicable hospitals with excess readmissions effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2012. Section 1886(o) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a hospital value-based purchasing program (the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program), effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2012, under which value-based incentive payments are made in a fiscal year to hospitals that meet performance standards established for a performance period for such fiscal year. In general, the adjustments under both the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program are applicable to MDHs (except when certain exclusions from the Hospital VBP Program are met).

The payment methodology under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program applies each program's adjustment factors respectively to the “base operating DRG payment amount.” (For additional information on the calculation of the adjustment factor and payment methodology under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, refer to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53374 through 53391). For additional information on the calculation of the adjustment factor and payment methodology under the Hospital VBP Program, refer to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53569 through 53576).) The “base operating DRG payment amount” is generally defined as the wage-adjusted DRG operating payment plus any applicable new technology add-on payments (see § 412.152 and § 412.160). For years prior to FY 2014, the statutory provisions related to the definition of “base operating DRG payment amount” under section 1886(q) of the Act and section 1886(o) of the Act excluded the difference between an MDH's applicable hospital-specific payment (HSP) rate and the Federal payment rate (referred to as the HSP add-on) from the definition of the base operating DRG payment amount. (MDHs are paid based on the Federal rate or, if higher, the Federal rate plus 75 percent of the amount by which the Federal rate is exceeded by the updated HSP rate from certain specified base years. Thus for MDHs, the HSP add-on for these years is equal to 75 percent of the difference between the Federal rate payment and HSP rate payment. At cost report settlement, the MAC determines which of the payment options yields a higher aggregate payment for an MDH, and also determines the final HSP add-on (if applicable) for that MDH for each cost reporting period.)

The treatment of MDHs under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and the Hospital VBP Program for FY 2014 was not addressed in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule because at the time of the publication of that final rule, the MDH program was set to expire at the end of FY 2013. Accordingly, the payment adjustment factors and payment methodology for FY 2014 under both the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program established in that final rule were determined without regard to HSP add-on payments to MDHs. That is, for hospitals that were MDHs, the FY 2014 readmissions and value-based incentive payment adjustment factors were calculated using base operating DRG payment amounts that do not include the difference between the HSP payment rate and the Federal payment rate (as applicable). Similarly, in determining payments for MDH discharges occurring in FY 2014, the base operating DRG payment amounts currently also do not include the difference between the HSP payment rate and the Federal payment rate (as applicable).

As discussed previously, subsequent to the publication of the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, the MDH program was extended from October 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, by section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act (Pub. L. 113-67) and was further extended an additional year from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, by section 106 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-93). This legislation extended the MDH program by amending sections 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) and 1886(d)(5)(G)(ii)(II) of the Act and also made conforming amendments to sections 1886(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1886(b)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act. Given the extension of the MDH program for FY 2014, in this document we discuss how the payment methodology under both the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program will be applied for MDH discharges occurring during FY 2014, consistent with the sections 1886(q)(2)(B)(i) and 1886(o)(7)(D)(i)(I) of the Act.

We are not revising the FY 2014 readmissions and value-based incentive payment adjustment factors that we established through notice and comment rulemaking in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule because at the time we established those factors, the MDH program was set to expire at the end of FY 2013. Therefore, the FY 2014 Readmissions Adjustment Factors in Table 15 of the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (as subsequently corrected by the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule correcting document that appeared in the October 3, 2013 Federal Register ) and the FY 2014 Hospital VBP Program Adjustment Factors in Table 16B of the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (which are only available on the Internet at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html ) will remain unchanged and will continue to apply in determining payments for MDHs' discharges occurring during FY 2014.

However, because a final payment determination for an MDH's cost reporting period is not done until cost report settlement, if an MDH ultimately receives the HSP add-on (that is, its final payment is determined to be the Federal rate payment plus 75 percent of the amount by which the Federal rate is exceeded by the updated HSP rate), then additional adjustments under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program (as applicable) will be made during cost report settlement. If at cost report settlement an MDH ultimately does not receive an HSP add-on for the cost reporting period (that is, its final payment is determined to be the Federal rate payment only), then no additional adjustment (if otherwise applicable) under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital VBP Program will be made.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and invite public comment prior to a rule taking effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and section 1871 of the Act. In addition, in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we ordinarily provide a 30-day delay to a substantive rule's effective date. For substantive rules that constitute major rules, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801, we ordinarily provide a 60-day delay in the effective date. None of the processes or effective date requirements apply, however, when the rule in question is interpretive, a general statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. They also do not apply when the statute establishes rules to be applied, leaving no discretion or gaps for an agency to fill in through rulemaking. In addition, an agency may waive notice and comment rulemaking, as well as any delay in effective date, when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment on the rule as well the effective date delay are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In cases where an agency finds good cause, the agency must incorporate a statement of this finding and its reasons in the rule issued.

The policies being publicized in this document do not constitute agency rulemaking. Rather, the statute, as amended by the PAMA, has already required that the agency make these changes, and we are simply notifying the public of the extension of the changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and the MDH program that was effective April 1, 2014. As this document merely informs the public of these extensions, it is not a rule and does not require any notice and comment rulemaking. To the extent any of the policies articulated in this document constitute interpretations of the statute's requirements or procedures that will be used to implement the statute's directive, they are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency procedure or practice, which are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking or a delayed effective date.

However, to the extent that notice and comment rulemaking or a delay in effective date or both would otherwise apply, we find good cause to waive such requirements. Specifically, we find it unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in this instance as this document does not propose to make any substantive changes to the policies or methodologies already in effect as a matter of law, but simply applies rate adjustments under the PAMA to these existing policies and methodologies. As the changes outlined in this document have already taken effect, it would also be impracticable to undertake notice and comment rulemaking. For these reasons, we also find that a waiver of any delay in effective date, if it were otherwise applicable, is necessary to comply with the requirements of the PAMA. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures as well as any delay in effective date, if such procedures or delays are required at all.

We have examined the impacts of this document as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for regulatory actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). Although we do not consider this document to constitute a substantive rule or regulatory action, the changes announced in this document are ”economically” significant, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore we have prepared a RIA, that to the best of our ability, presents the costs and benefits of the provisions announced in this document. In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small government jurisdictions. We estimate that most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities as that term is used in the RFA. The great majority of hospitals and most other health care providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $7.5 to $35.5 million in any 1 year). (For details on the latest standard for health care providers, we refer readers to page 33 of the Table of Small Business Size Standards at the Small Business Administration's Web site at http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/tableofsize/index.html. ) For purposes of the RFA, all hospitals and other providers and suppliers are considered to be small entities. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We believe that this document will have a significant impact on small entities. Because we acknowledge that many of the affected entities are small entities, the analysis discussed in this section would fulfill any requirement for a final regulatory flexibility analysis. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. With the exception of hospitals located in certain New England counties, for purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we now define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of an urban area and has fewer than 100 beds.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This document will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This document will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Although this document merely reflects the implementation of two provisions of the PAMA and does not constitute a substantive rule, we nevertheless prepared this impact analysis in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of these changes are fully understood. The following analysis, in conjunction with the remainder of this document, demonstrates that this document is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in Executive Order 12866 and 13563, the RFA, and section 1102(b) of the Act. The changes announced in this document will positively affect payments to a substantial number of small rural hospitals and providers, as well as other classes of hospitals and providers, and the effects on some hospitals and providers may be significant. The impact analysis, which discusses the effect on total payments to IPPS hospitals and providers, is presented in this section.

This document is necessary to update the FY 2014 IPPS final payment policies to reflect changes required by the implementation of two provisions of the PAMA. Section 105 of the PAMA extends the temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. Section 106 of the PAMA extends the MDH program from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. As noted previously, program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal.

The FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and the FY 2014 IPPS IFC included an impact analysis for the changes to the IPPS included in those rules. This document updates those impacts to the IPPS to reflect the changes made by sections 105 and 106 of the PAMA. Since these sections were not budget neutral, the overall estimates for hospitals have changed from our estimates that were published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 51037) and the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15029 and 15030). We estimate that the changes in the FY 2014 IPPS payments, including the changes announced in this document, will result in an approximate $1.68 billion increase in total payments to IPPS hospitals relative to FY 2013 rather than the $1.44 billion increase we projected in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15029).

The impact analysis reflects the change in estimated payments to IPPS hospitals in FY 2014 as a result of the implementation of sections 105 and 106 of the PAMA relative to the revised estimated FY 2014 payments to IPPS hospitals that were published in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC (79 FR 15029), which include both the estimated FY 2014 IPPS payments from the provisions implemented in that IFC in addition to the estimated FY 2014 IPPS payments published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 51037). As described later in this regulatory impact analysis, FY 2014 IPPS payments to hospitals affected by sections 105 and 106 of the PAMA are projected to increase by $227 million (relative to the FY 2014 payments estimated for these hospitals for the FY 2014 IPPS IFC). Therefore, we project that, on the average, overall IPPS payments in FY 2014 for all hospitals will increase by approximately an additional 0.24 percent as a result of the estimated $227 million increase in payments due to the implementation of sections 105 and 106 of the PAMA compared to the previous estimate of FY 2014 payments to all IPPS hospitals published in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC.

The extension of the temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals (originally provided for by the Affordable Care Act) for the last 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, for April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014) as provided for under section 105 of the PAMA is a non-budget neutral payment provision. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act expanded the definition of low-volume hospital and modified the methodology for determining the payment adjustment for hospitals meeting that definition. Prior to the enactment of the PAMA, beginning April 1, 2014, the low-volume hospital definition and payment adjustment methodology was to return to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act and extended by subsequent legislation. With the extension for the last 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014), provided for by the PAMA, based on FY 2012 claims data (March 2013 update of the MedPAR file), we estimate that approximately 600 hospitals will qualify as a low-volume hospital through September 30, 2014. We project that these hospitals will experience an increase in payments of approximately $161 million as compared to our previous estimate of payments to these hospitals for FY 2014 published in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC.

The extension of the MDH program for the last 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, from April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014) as provided for under section 106 of the PAMA is a non-budget neutral payment provision. Hospitals that qualify as a MDHs receive the higher of operating IPPS payments made under the Federal standardized amount or the payments made under the Federal standardized amount plus 75 percent of the difference between the Federal standardized amount and the hospital-specific rate. Because this provision is not budget neutral, we estimate that the extension of this payment provision for the last 6 months of FY 2014 will result in a 0.1-percent increase in payments overall. Prior to the extension of the MDH program, there were 198 MDHs, of which 118 were estimated to be paid under the blended payment of the Federal standardized amount and hospital-specific rate through April 1, 2014. Because those 118 MDHs will now receive the blended payment (that is, the Federal standardized amount plus 75 percent of the difference between the Federal standardized amount and the hospital-specific rate) for the second half of FY 2014 (from April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014), we estimate that those hospitals will experience an overall increase in payments of approximately $66 million as compared to our previous estimate of payments to these hospitals for FY 2014 published in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC.

This document provides descriptions of the statutory provisions that are addressed and identifies policies for implementing these provisions. Due to the prescriptive nature of the statutory provisions, no alternatives were considered.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 ), in Table I, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of expenditures associated with the provisions of this document as they relate to acute care hospitals. This table provides our best estimate of the change in Medicare payments to providers as a result of the changes to the IPPS presented in this document. All expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal government to Medicare providers. As previously discussed, relative to what was projected in the FY 2014 IPPS IFC, the changes to FY 2014 IPPS payments made by sections 105 and 106 of the PAMA presented in this document are projected to increase FY 2014 payments to IPPS hospitals by approximately $227 million.