This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR Part 987), regulating the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Riverside County, California date handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable dates beginning October 1, 2014, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2014-15 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.20 per hundredweight of dates.

The California date marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program (7 CFR 987.72). The members of the Committee are date producers and handlers from Riverside County, California. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

The Committee met on June 25, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $56,200, and an assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of Riverside County, California dates. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $97,700. The assessment rate of $0.20 is $0.20 lower than the rate currently in effect.

The Committee recommended a lower assessment rate because of a significant decrease in its budgeted expenses. The industry shifted its marketing programs from the Committee to the California Date Commission, a California State marketing program, beginning October 1, 2013. As such costs continue to shift to the State marketing program, the amount of assessment revenue needed under the order continues to decrease.

Income generated from the lower assessment rate, combined with cull surplus contributions, and carry-in funds from the 2013-14 crop year should be sufficient to cover anticipated 2014-15 expenses.

Proceeds from sales of cull dates are deposited into a surplus account for subsequent use by the Committee in covering the surplus pool share of the Committee's expenses. Handlers may also dispose of cull dates of their own production within their own livestock-feeding operation; otherwise, such cull dates must be shipped or delivered to the Committee for sale to non-human food product outlets. Pursuant to § 987.72(c), the Committee is authorized to temporarily use funds derived from assessments to defray expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates. All such expenses are required to be deducted from proceeds obtained by the Committee from the disposal of surplus dates. For the 2014-15 crop year, the Committee estimates that $5,000 from the surplus account would be needed to temporarily defray expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014-15 crop year include: $56,200 for general and administrative expenses, and $2,800 in contingency funds. In comparison, the major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013-14 crop year included: $58,200 for general and administrative expenses, $20,000 for nutrition and food quality programs, and $19,500 for contingency funds.

The assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates handled was recommended by the Committee after considering several factors: the anticipated size of the 2014-15 crop, the Committee's estimates of the incoming reserve, other income, and anticipated expenses. Date shipments for the year are estimated at 27,000,000 pounds (270,000 hundredweight) which should provide $54,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with a $5,000 reimbursement for the cost of disposing of surplus culls, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Section 987.72(d) of the order states that the Committee may maintain a monetary reserve not to exceed the average of one year's expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established reserve need not be reduced to conform to any recomputed average. The Committee expects to carry a $60,000 reserve into the 2014-15 crop year. It expects to add $2,800 to the reserve during the year, for a carryout of approximately $62,800, which is below the limit specified in the order.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings.

USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2014-15 budget and those for subsequent crop years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

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

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

There are approximately 70 date producers in the production area and 11 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most-recently completed crop year (2012) shows that about 4.04 tons, or 8,080 pounds, of dates were produced per acre. The 2012 grower price published by NASS was $1,340 per ton, or $0.67 per pound. Thus, the value of date production per acre in 2011-12 averaged about $5,414 (8,080 pounds times $0.67 per pound). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 138 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $5,414 per acre equals 138.53 acres). According to Committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm less than 138 acres. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities. In addition, according to data from the Committee staff, the majority of California date handlers have receipts of less than $7,000,000 and may also be considered small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014-15 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.20 per hundredweight of dates handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $56,200 and an assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates, which is $0.20 lower than the 2013-14 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable dates for the 2014-15 crop year is estimated at 27,000,000 pounds (270,000 hundredweight). Thus, the $0.20 rate should provide $54,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, along with the $5,000 contribution from the surplus program, should be adequate to cover expenses for the 2014-15 crop year.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014-15 crop year include: $56,200 for general and administrative expenses, and $2,800 in contingency funds. In comparison, the major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013-14 crop year include: $58,200 for general and administrative expenses, $20,000 for nutrition and food quality programs, and $19,500 for contingency funds.

The Committee recommended a lower assessment rate because the industry began shifting its marketing programs to the State marketing program, the California Date Commission, beginning October 1, 2013. The migration of costs to the State marketing program has continued. Thus, less assessment revenue is needed to fund Committee operations under the order.

Section 987.72(d) of the order states that the Committee may maintain a monetary reserve not to exceed the average of one year's expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established reserve need not be reduced to conform to any recomputed average. The Committee expects to carry a $60,000 reserve into the 2014-15 crop year. It expects to add $2,800 to the reserve during the year, for a carryout of approximately $62,800, which is below the limit specified in the order.

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2014-15 crop year expenditures of $56,200. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels and assessment rates were discussed by the subcommittee, based upon the relative value of various projects to the date industry and the Committee. The assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight of dates was then recommended after consideration of several factors, including the anticipated 2014-15 crop size, the Committee's estimates of the incoming reserve funds, other income, and their anticipated expenses.

A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2014-15 crop year could range between $45.00 and $55.00 per hundredweight of dates. Utilizing these estimates and the assessment rate of $0.20 per hundredweight, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2014-15 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.36 and 0.44 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's and subcommittee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California date industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Industry members also discussed the various possible assessment rates, potential crop size, and estimated expenses at the Budget Subcommittee meeting on June 4, 2014. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

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

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2014-15 crop year begins on October 1, 2014, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each crop year apply to all assessable dates handled during such crop year; (2) the action decreases the assessment rate for assessable dates beginning with the 2014-15 crop year; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period. All comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is amended as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington is regulated by 7 CFR part 946. This rule continues in effect the interim rule that extended the temporary exemption of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from the order's handling regulations through the 2014-2015 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule allows the Washington potato industry to continue to market yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes without regard to the minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements prescribed under the order.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2014, and effective on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 26109, Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0026, FV14-946-1 IR), § 946.336 was amended to exempt yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements under the Washington potato marketing order through the 2014-2015 and subsequent fiscal periods.

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

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

There are 43 handlers of Washington potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 267 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

For the 2011-2012 marketing year, the Committee reports that 11,018,670 hundredweight of Washington potatoes were shipped into the fresh market. Based on average f.o.b. prices estimated by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Committee data on individual handler shipments, the Committee estimates that 42, or approximately 98 percent of the handlers, had annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for Washington potatoes for 2011-2012 was $7.90 per hundredweight. The average gross annual revenue for the 267 Washington potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $326,021. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that extended the temporary exemption of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from the handling regulations through the 2014-2015 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule amends the provisions in § 946.336. Authority for the change in the order's rules and regulations is provided in § 946.52.

The Committee does not anticipate that this rule will negatively impact small businesses. This rule will exempt yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements. Though inspections are not mandatory for such potatoes during the exemption period, handlers may voluntarily choose to have their potatoes inspected. Handlers are thus able to control costs based on the demands of their customers.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

During the exemption period, handlers will continue to be required to report fresh shipments of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes monthly. While this rule requires a reporting requirement for shipments of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes, their exemption from handling regulations also eliminates the more frequent reporting requirements imposed under the order's special purpose shipment exemptions (§ 946.336(d) and (e)). Under these paragraphs, handlers are required to provide detailed reports whenever they divert regulated potatoes for livestock feed, charity, seed, prepeeling, processing, grading and storing in specified counties in Oregon, and experimentation.

Therefore, any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers of yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes are expected to be offset by the elimination of the other reporting requirements currently in effect. In addition, the exemption from handling regulations and inspection requirements for yellow fleshed and white types of potatoes is expected to reduce industry expenses.

As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited to participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 10, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before July 7, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-14-0026-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change as published in the Federal Register (79 FR 26109, May 7, 2014) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17942).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0052, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21160).

The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2013-10-02, dated October 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies on the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post; a bolt check, if applicable; and modification of the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post, including a general visual inspection for damage of the specified lower eyelet fitting and repair of the damage. The modification would terminate the repetitive detailed inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0234-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.

No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, ANAC, or ANAC's authorized Designee.

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature. The Designee signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are ANAC-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the ANAC Designee's authorized signature approval are not ANAC-approved, unless ANAC directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21160, April 15, 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 21160, April 15, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 56 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 35 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $386 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $188,216, or $3,361 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0234; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25033). The NPRM was prompted by our determination to introduce a corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0051, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 25033, May 2, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 25033, May 2, 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 25033, May 2, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,120, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0258; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17453).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-04, dated January 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0175-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation (AWAC) requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) to delete the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM. AWAC pointed out that, typically, when the design approval holder determines that a repetitive action for a task is required, the repetitive action is normally published in the maintenance requirements manual as an airworthiness limitation, a certification maintenance requirement, or a systems and powerplant program task. AWAC notes that the design approval holder has no such requirement in its proposed or published documents, and that the service information identified in the NPRM states that it does not affect airworthiness limitations or damage tolerance inspections.

As an alternative to removing the repetitive requirement specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014), AWAC requested that, if we do not agree to revise the NPRM as requested, we remove the compliance time of 48 months for the repetitive replacement. AWAC questioned why the repetitive replacements should be required, if the airplane has not been regularly operated. For example, an airplane on which the replacement task was previously performed, that has subsequently been sitting in storage in the desert for 3-4 years would not have any stress.

We disagree to delete the repetitive replacements required by paragraph (g) of this final rule. There are various contributing factors to the premature failure of the elevator PCU shear pins, and corrosion is one of those factors. The repetitive replacement interval was determined by the design approval holder and certifying authority. And, because corrosion is generally a function of time and exposure to the environment, rather than number of flights, we have determined that a specific interval of calendar time is required to address this failure mode. Bombardier indicated that it did not wish to state a repetitive action within its service bulletin, as operators prefer service bulletins that are not left open-ended.

We also do not agree to remove the 48-month compliance time. The 48-month compliance time is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition on any airplanes with a low utilization rate. An airplane on which the proposed replacement has been done that has been parked in storage in the desert for three to four years might not have undergone any operational stress, but the airplane is still exposed to its environment making it susceptible to corrosion. We have made no changes to this final rule in this regard.

AWAC requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) to allow credit for replacements done previously using maintenance Task 55-21-27-960-802 and/or other service information identified in the airplane's maintenance records. AWAC suggested that there might be other service information that has been used to do the replacements required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM.

We partially agree. We agree to allow credit for the replacements performed before the effective date of this AD using Task 55-21-27-960-802 of the Canadair Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, CSP A-001, Revision 49, dated May 10, 2014. We have added new paragraph (i)(3) in this final rule to provide credit for using Task 55-21-27-960-802 to accomplish the replacements specified in paragraph (g) of this final rule. We also have revised paragraph (i) of this final rule and redesignated that text as paragraphs (i), (i)(1), and (i)(2) of this AD; this change was for formatting purposes only.

We do not agree to provide credit in this final rule for replacements done using unspecified service information that might be identified in unspecified service documents in the airplane maintenance records. However, affected operators may request approval to use other, specific service information as an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.

No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17453, March 28, 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 17453, March 28, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $41 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $219,075, or $381 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0175; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21651).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0210, dated September 11, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0236-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 21651, April 17, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21651, April 17, 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 21651, April 17, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $595, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0236; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF-2014-14, dated June 5, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0616.

Viking Air Limited has issued Viking Service Bulletin No. V3/0005, Revision `A', dated May 27, 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We consider this AD interim action. After the State of Design reviews and evaluates the reporting data, we may take further rulemaking action in the future.

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 failure of the mounting block through breakage or detachment may cause loss of control of horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of control. 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-2014-0616; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-018-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 because of 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 will affect 35 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $255 per product.

The scope of damage found in the inspections could vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane or the cost to repair or replace damaged parts on each airplane or the number of airplanes that may require repair or replacements.

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:

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR Part 1. On January 18, 2001, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-105801-00) (the 2001 NPRM) was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 4746). The 2001 NPRM broadly addressed the application of the straddle rules and section 263(g), and it included proposed regulation § 1.1092(d)-1(d) to clarify the circumstances under which an issuer's position under a debt instrument is treated as a position in personal property that is part of a straddle under section 1092 of the Internal Revenue Code. No public hearing was requested or held. Written and electronic comments responding to the 2001 NPRM were received, and the only commenter that substantively addressed proposed § 1.1092(d)-1(d) urged its adoption.

On September 5, 2013, temporary and final regulations (TD 9635) were published in the Federal Register (78 FR 54568). In § 1.1092(d)-1T(d), the temporary regulations adopted the text of proposed § 1.1092(d)-1(d), as published in the 2001 NPRM. As had been proposed in the 2001 NPRM, to make room for a substantive paragraph (d), the 2013 final regulations redesignated as paragraph (e)(1) the section's effective/applicability date provisions, which had formerly been designated as § 1.1092(d)-1(d). The temporary regulations added a new paragraph (e)(2) containing the applicability date that had been proposed in the 2001 NPRM. A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-111753-12) (the 2013 NPRM) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the same issue of the Federal Register (78 FR 54598). No public hearing was requested or held. No written or electronic comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received.

This Treasury decision adopts the provisions in the 2013 NPRM without substantive change. In addition, this Treasury decision amends the effective/applicability date provisions in § 1.1092(d)-1(e) to provide explicitly the dates for those portions of § 1.1092(d)-1 that were added by a 1993 Treasury decision (TD 8491) as discussed further in section 3 of this preamble.

The corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The remainder of the 2001 NPRM remains proposed.

The final regulations provide guidance under section 1092 regarding the circumstances in which an issuer's obligation under a debt instrument may be a position in actively traded personal property and, therefore, part of a straddle.

Section 1092(d)(1) defines “personal property” to mean “personal property of a type that is actively traded.” A debt or obligation generally is not property of the debtor or obligor. Nevertheless, if a debt instrument provides for payments that are (or are reasonably expected to be) linked to the value of personal property as so defined, then the obligor on the instrument has a position in the personal property referenced by the debt instrument. Therefore, as was proposed in the 2013 NPRM, § 1.1092(d)-1(d) of the final regulations expressly provides that an obligation under a debt instrument may be a position in personal property that is part of a straddle.

The final regulations adopt the effective/applicability date set forth in the 2013 NPRM by providing that § 1.1092(d)-1(d) applies to straddles established on or after January 17, 2001 (the date on which the 2001 NPRM was filed with the Federal Register ). No inference is intended with respect to straddles established prior to January 17, 2001. In appropriate cases, the IRS may take the position under section 1092(d)(2) that an obligation under a debt instrument was part of a straddle prior to the effective/applicability date of § 1.1092(d)-1(d) if the debt instrument functioned economically as an interest in actively traded personal property.

In addition, the final regulations clarify the effective-date paragraph (§ 1.1092(d)-1(e)) to reflect the applicability of provisions in § 1.1092(d)-1 that were originally proposed in 1991 and adopted in 1993. On July 10, 1991, a notice of proposed rulemaking (FI-16-89) (the 1991 NPRM) was published in the Federal Register (56 FR 31350). The 1991 NPRM primarily addressed accounting for notional principal contracts but also proposed a new § 1.1092(d)-1, regarding the definition of actively traded personal property for purposes of the straddle rules. Proposed § 1.1092(d)-1(a) clarified the definition of actively traded personal property, and proposed § 1.1092(d)-1(b) enumerated several categories of established financial markets. See 56 FR 31353. The preamble also stated, “Proposed regulation section 1.1092(d)-1 is proposed to be effective for notional principal contracts entered into on or after July 8, 1991.” See 56 FR 31350. (July 8, 1991, was the date on which the 1991 NPRM was filed with the Federal Register .)

However, the text of the 1991 proposed regulations contained an effective date only in paragraph (c), which was the portion of the proposed regulations that focused on which notional principal contracts would be treated as actively traded personal property. See proposed § 1.1092(d)-1(c)(2) (“(2) Effective date. This paragraph (c) applies to notional principal contracts entered into on or after July 8, 1991.”).

Final regulations (TD 8491) (the 1993 Treasury decision), which issued § 1.1092(d)-1, were published in the Federal Register on October 14, 1993 (58 FR 53125). The 1993 Treasury decision moved the effective date for paragraph (c) to a new paragraph (d), and added an October 14, 1993, effective date for new paragraph (b)(1)(vii). The 1993 Treasury decision, however, like the 1991 NPRM, did not contain explicit effective dates for paragraph (a) or for the portion of paragraph (b) that had appeared in the 1991 NPRM.

Accordingly, these final regulations revise § 1.1092(d)-1(e) to include explicit effective/applicability-date provisions for all paragraphs of § 1.1092(d)-1.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received.

The principal author of these regulations is Mary Brewer, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 1 is amended as follows:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The sections of the PHS Act incorporated into ERISA and the Code are sections 2701 through 2728.

Section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act and incorporated into ERISA and the Code, requires that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage of certain specified preventive services without cost sharing, including under paragraph (a)(4), benefits for certain women's preventive health services as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopted and released guidelines for women's preventive health services (HRSA Guidelines) based on recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine. As relevant here, the HRSA Guidelines include all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services). 1 Except as discussed later in this section, non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance coverage are required to provide coverage consistent with the HRSA Guidelines without cost sharing for plan years (or, in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after August 1, 2012. 2

Interim final regulations implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act were published on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41726) (2010 interim final regulations). On August 1, 2011, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) amended the 2010 interim final regulations to provide HRSA with authority to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) from the requirement to cover contraceptive services consistent with the HRSA Guidelines (76 FR 46621) (2011 amended interim final regulations). 3 On the same date, HRSA exercised this authority in the HRSA Guidelines to exempt group health plans established or maintained by these religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) from the HRSA Guidelines with respect to contraceptive services. 4 The 2011 amended interim final regulations specified that, for purposes of this exemption, a religious employer was one that: (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization described in section 6033(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. Final regulations issued on February 10, 2012, adopted the definition of religious employer in the 2011 amended interim final regulations without modification (2012 final regulations). 5

Contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2012 final regulations, HHS, with the agreement of the Departments of Labor and the Treasury, issued guidance establishing a temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments for group health plans established or maintained by certain nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans). 6 The guidance provided that the temporary enforcement safe harbor would remain in effect until the first plan year beginning on or after August 1, 2013. At the same time, the Departments committed to rulemaking to achieve the goals of providing coverage of recommended preventive services, including contraceptive services, without cost sharing, while simultaneously ensuring that certain additional nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage would not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage.

On March 21, 2012, the Departments published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that described and solicited comments on possible approaches to achieve these goals (77 FR 16501).

On February 6, 2013, following review of the comments on the ANPRM, the Departments published proposed regulations at 78 FR 8456 (proposed regulations). The regulations proposed to simplify and clarify the definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the religious employer exemption. The regulations also proposed accommodations for group health plans established or maintained or arranged by certain nonprofit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans). These organizations were referred to as “eligible organizations.”

The regulations proposed that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group health insurance coverage in connection with the plan would be required to assume sole responsibility for providing contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. The Departments proposed a comparable accommodation with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education.

In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the proposed regulations presented potential approaches under which the third party administrator of the plan would provide or arrange for a third party to provide contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan. An issuer (or its affiliate) would be able to offset the costs incurred by the third party administrator and the issuer in the course of arranging and providing such coverage by claiming an adjustment in the Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) user fee.

The Departments received over 400,000 comments (many of them standardized form letters) in response to the proposed regulations. After consideration of the comments, the Departments published final regulations on July 2, 2013 at 78 FR 39870 (July 2013 final regulations). The July 2013 final regulations simplified and clarified the definition of religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption and established accommodations for health coverage established or maintained or arranged by eligible organizations. A contemporaneously re-issued HHS guidance document extended the temporary safe harbor from enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement by the Departments to encompass plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2013, and before January 1, 2014. This guidance included a form to be used by an organization during this temporary period to self-certify that its plan qualified for the temporary enforcement safe harbor. In addition, HHS and the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a self-certification form, EBSA Form 700, to be executed by an organization seeking to be treated as an eligible organization for purposes of an accommodation under the July 2013 final regulations. This self-certification form was provided for use with the accommodation under the July 2013 final regulations, after the expiration of the temporary enforcement safe harbor (that is, for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014).

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage could not be applied to the closely held for-profit corporations before the Court because their owners had religious objections to providing such coverage, and because the Government's goal of guaranteeing coverage for contraceptive methods without cost sharing could be achieved in a less restrictive manner by offering such closely held for-profit entities the accommodation the Government already provided to religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. After describing this accommodation, the Court concluded that the accommodation “does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS' stated interests equally well.” 134 S. Ct. at 2782. The Departments are publishing elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes possible amendments to the definition of the term “eligible organization” to include closely held for-profit entities with religious objections to contraceptive coverage, in light of the Hobby Lobby decision.

On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an interim order in connection with an application for an injunction pending appeal in Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014), in which the plaintiff challenged under RFRA the requirement in the July 2013 final regulations that an eligible organization invoking the accommodation send EBSA Form 700 to the insurance issuer or third party administrator. The Court's order stated that, “[i]f the [plaintiff] informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the [Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury] are enjoined from enforcing against the [plaintiff]” certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act and related regulations requiring coverage without cost sharing of certain contraceptive services “pending final disposition of appellate review.” 134 S.Ct. at 2807. The order stated that Wheaton College need not use EBSA Form 700 or send a copy of the executed form to its health insurance issuers or third party administrators to meet the condition for this injunctive relief. Id. The Court also stated that its interim order neither affected “the ability of the [plaintiff's] employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives,” nor precluded the Government from relying on the notice by the plaintiff “to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act.” Id. The Court's order further stated that it “should not be construed as an expression of the Court's views on the merits” of the plaintiff's challenge to the accommodations. Id.

The Departments are issuing these interim final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's interim order in Wheaton concerning notice to the Federal government that an eligible organization has a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage, as an alternative to the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification, and to preserve participants' and beneficiaries' (and, in the case of student health insurance coverage, enrollees' and dependents') access to coverage for the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives, as prescribed by a health care provider, without cost sharing.

These interim final regulations amend the Departments' July 2013 final regulations to provide an alternative process for the sponsor of a group health plan or an institution of higher education to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services, as an alternative to the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification. These interim final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to use EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the July 2013 final regulations and guidance. 7

The alternative process permitted by these interim final regulations is consistent with the Wheaton order. It provides that an eligible organization may notify HHS in writing of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to providing coverage of some or all contraceptive services (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type ( i.e., whether it is a student health insurance plan within the meaning of 45 CFR 147.145(a) or a church plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33)); and the name and contact information for any of the plan's third party administrators and health insurance issuers. 8 A model notice to HHS that eligible organizations may, but are not required to, use is available at: http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/index.html#Prevention. If there is a change in any of the information required to be included in the notice, the organization must provide updated information to HHS.

As with the process established in the July 2013 final regulations, nothing in this alternative notice process requires a government assessment of the sincerity of the religious belief underlying the eligible organization's objection. The notice to HHS, and any subsequent updates, should be sent electronically to: marketreform@cms.hhs.gov, or by regular mail to: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Room 739H. The content required for the notice represents the minimum information necessary for the Departments to determine which entities are covered by the accommodation, to administer the accommodation, and to implement the policies in the July 2013 final regulations.

When an eligible organization that establishes or maintains or arranges a self-insured plan subject to ERISA provides such a notice to HHS, DOL (working with HHS) will send a separate notification to each third party administrator of the ERISA plan. DOL's notification will inform each third party administrator of the eligible organization's religious objection to funding or administering some or all contraceptive coverage and will designate the relevant third party administrator(s) as plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for those contraceptive benefits that the third party administrator would otherwise manage. The DOL notification will be an instrument under which the plan is operated and shall supersede any earlier designation. In establishing and implementing this alternative process, DOL is exercising its broad rulemaking authority under Title I of ERISA, which includes the ability to interpret and apply the definition of a plan administrator under ERISA section 3(16)(A).

If an eligible organization that establishes or maintains an insured health plan provides a notice to HHS under this alternative process, HHS will send a separate notification to the plan's health insurance issuer(s) informing the issuer(s) that HHS has received a notice under § 2590.715-2713A(c)(1) and describing the obligations of the issuer(s) under § 2590.715-2713A. Issuers remain responsible for compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirement to provide coverage for contraceptive services to participants and beneficiaries, and to enrollees and dependents of student health plans, notwithstanding that the policyholder is an eligible organization with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage that will not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage.

Other questions have arisen regarding the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptive services without cost sharing and the accommodations for eligible organizations. In what has been described as the “non-interference provision,” the July 2013 final regulations provided that eligible organizations that establish or maintain self-insured group health plans “must not, directly or indirectly seek to interfere with a third party administrator's arrangements to provide or arrange for separate payments for contraceptive services” and “must not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence a third party administrator's decision to make any such arrangements.” 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(iii); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(iii). The Departments interpret the July 2013 final regulations solely as prohibiting the use of bribery, threats, or other forms of economic coercion in an attempt to prevent a third party administrator from fulfilling its independent legal obligations to provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services. Because such conduct is generally unlawful and is prohibited under other state and federal laws, and to reduce unnecessary confusion, these interim final regulations delete the language prohibiting an eligible organization from interfering with or seeking to influence a third party administrator's decision or efforts to provide separate payments for contraceptive services.

Section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act authorize the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS (collectively, the Secretaries) to promulgate any interim final rules that they determine are appropriate to carry out the provisions of chapter 100 of the Code, part 7 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA, and part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act, which include PHS Act sections 2701 through 2728 and the incorporation of those sections into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815.

In addition, under Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The provisions of the APA that ordinarily require a notice of proposed rulemaking do not apply here because of the specific authority granted by section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act. However, even if these provisions of the APA were applicable, the Secretaries have determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay putting the provisions in these interim final regulations in place until a full public notice and comment process is completed.

As discussed earlier, the Departments are issuing these interim final regulations in light of the Supreme Court's order in Wheaton College concerning notice to the Federal government that an eligible organization has a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage, as an alternative to the EBSA Form 700, and to preserve participants' and beneficiaries' (and, in the case of student health insurance coverage, enrollees' and dependents') access to coverage for the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive services, as prescribed by a health care provider, without cost sharing. That order was issued and was effective on July 3, 2014.

In order to provide other eligible organizations with an option equivalent to the one the Supreme Court provided to Wheaton College on an interim basis, regulations must be published and available to the public as soon as possible. Delaying the availability of the alternative process in order to allow for a full notice and comment period would delay the ability of eligible organizations to avail themselves of this alternative process and could delay women's access to contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, thereby compromising their access to necessary contraceptive services. Issuing interim final regulations provides the public with an opportunity to comment on whether these regulations affording this alternative should be made permanent or subject to modification without delaying the effective date of the regulations.

For the foregoing reasons, the Departments have determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to engage in full notice and comment rulemaking before putting these interim final regulations into effect, and that it is in the public interest to promulgate interim final regulations. For the same reasons, the Departments have determined, consistent with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), that there is good cause to make these interim final regulations effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

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, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a regulation: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year), and an “economically significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These interim final regulations are not likely to have economic impacts of $100 million or more in any one year, and therefore do not meet the definition of “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866.

These interim final regulations amend the Departments' July 2013 final regulations to provide an alternative process for an eligible organization to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.

The Departments expect that these interim final regulations will not result in any additional burden on or costs to the affected entities. These interim final regulations do not change the fundamental ability of an eligible organization to exempt itself from contracting, arranging, paying, or referring for contraceptive coverage. Instead, the regulations merely provide alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services.

For purposes of the Department of the Treasury, it has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the APA does not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities This certification is based on the fact that the temporary regulations will not result in any additional costs to affected entities but will provide an alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to providing coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. These interim final regulations contain an information collection request (ICR) that is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A description of these provisions is given in the following section with an estimate of the annual burden. Average labor costs (including fringe benefits) used to estimate the costs are calculated using data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Each organization seeking to be treated as an eligible organization under these interim final regulations must either use the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification or provide notice to HHS of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. Specifically, these interim final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to notify an issuer or third party administrator using EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the July 2013 final regulations. In addition, these interim final regulations permit an alternative process, consistent with the Supreme Court's interim order in Wheaton College, by which an eligible organization may notify HHS of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. HHS is aware, based on litigation, that there are approximately 122 eligible organizations that would now have the option to provide notice to HHS, rather than provide a self-certification to TPAs and/or issuers.

In order to complete this task, HHS assumes that clerical staff for each eligible organization will gather and enter the necessary information and send the self-certification to the issuer or third party administrator as appropriate, or send the notice to HHS. 9 HHS assumes that a compensation and benefits manager and inside legal counsel will review the self-certification or notice to HHS and a senior executive would execute it. HHS estimates that an eligible organization would spend approximately 45 minutes (30 minutes of clerical labor at a cost of $30 per hour, 10 minutes for a compensation and benefits manager at a cost of $102 per hour, 5 minutes for legal counsel at a cost of $127, and 5 minutes by a senior executive at a cost of $121) preparing and sending the self-certification or notice to HHS and filing it to meet the recordkeeping requirement. Therefore, the total annual burden for preparing and providing the information in the self-certification or notice to HHS will require approximately 50 minutes for each eligible organization with an equivalent cost burden of approximately $53 for a total hour burden of 102 hours with an equivalent cost of $6,430.

As the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services share jurisdiction they are splitting the hour burden so each will account for 51 burden hours. HHS estimates that each self-certification or notice to HHS will require $0.49 in postage and $0.05 in materials cost (paper and ink) and the total postage and materials cost for each self-certification or notice sent via mail will be $0.54. For purposes of this analysis, HHS assumes that all self-certifications or notices to HHS will be mailed. The total cost burden for the self-certifications or notices to HHS is approximately $66.

As the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services share jurisdiction they are splitting the cost burden so each will account for $33 of the cost burden.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the EBSA Form 700 ICR has been approved by OMB under control number 1210-0150. These interim final regulations amend the ICR by providing an alternative process consistent with the Wheaton order, as discussed earlier in this preamble. The Department of Labor submitted an ICR in order to obtain OMB approval under the PRA for the regulatory revision. The request was made under emergency clearance procedures specified in regulations at 5 CFR 1320.13. In response, OMB approved the ICR under control number 1210-0150 through January 31, 2015. A copy of the information collection request may be obtained free of charge on the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201408-1210-001.

This approval allows respondents temporarily to utilize the additional flexibility these final regulations provide, while the Department seeks public comment on the collection methods—including their utility and burden. Contemporaneously with the publication of these interim final regulations, the Department of Labor published a notice elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register informing the public of their intention to extend the OMB approval.

Consistent with the analysis in the HHS PRA section above the Department expects that each of the estimated 122 organizations will spend approximately 50 minutes in preparation time and incur $0.54 mailing cost to satisfy the requirements. The DOL information collections in this rule are found in 29 CFR 2510.3-16 and 2590.715-2713A and are summarized as follows:

Type of Review: Revised Collection.

Agency: DOL-EBSA.

Title: Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act.

OMB Numbers: 1210-0150.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for profits.

Total Respondents: 61 (combined with HHS total is 122).

Total Responses: 61 (combined with HHS total is 122).

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 51 (combined with HHS total is 102 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $33 (combined with HHS total is 66).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under Section 553(b) of the APA, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. These interim final regulations are exempt from APA's prior notice and comment requirement because the Departments made a good cause finding that a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary earlier in this preamble. Therefore, the RFA does not apply and the Departments are not required to either certify that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Nevertheless, the Departments carefully considered the likely impact of the rule on small entities in connection with their assessment under Executive Order 12866. The Departments do not expect that these interim final regulations will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, because they will not result in any additional costs to affected entities. Instead, the regulations merely provide an alternative means for eligible organizations to provide notice of their religious objection to coverage of all, or a subset of, contraceptive services.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as well as Executive Order 12875, these interim final regulations do not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, nor do they include any federal mandates that may impose an annual burden of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more on the private sector. 10

Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have “substantial direct effects” on states, the relationship between the federal government and states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have these federalism implications must consult with state and local officials, and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the concerns of state and local officials in the preamble to the regulation.

These interim final regulations do not have any Federalism implications, since they only provide an eligible organization with an alternative process to provide notice of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.

The Department of the Treasury temporary regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 7805 and 9833 of the Code.

The Department of Labor regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002(16), 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161-1168, 1169, 1181-1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Public Law 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law 105-200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Public Law 110-343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2011, 77 FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012).

The Department of Health and Human Services regulations are adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), as amended; and Title I of the Affordable Care Act, sections 1301-1304, 1311-1312, 1321-1322, 1324, 1334, 1342-1343, 1401-1402, and 1412, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (42 U.S.C. 18021-18024, 18031-18032, 18041-18042, 18044, 18054, 18061, 18063, 18071, 18082, 26 U.S.C. 36B, and 31 U.S.C. 9701).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is amended as follows:

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 29 CFR parts 2510 and 2590 as follows:

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR part 147 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulation for the annual S.P.O.R.T. boat races in 33 CFR 100.801 (Table 3, Line 5) on September 19, 2014, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on September 20 and 21, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

This Special Local Regulation encompasses all waters of the Sabine River south of latitude 30°05′33″ N and waters north of latitude 30°05′45″ N North American Datum (NAD 83).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the on-scene Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0476 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 27, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0476, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL-9392-9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F8179) by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, 3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide, in or on pineapple at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

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

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

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Methoxyfenozide is of low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes and is not a dermal sensitizer. Many of the available short-term or subchronic toxicity studies on methoxyfenozide showed little or no toxicity. The main target organs identified from the toxicity studies in the rat and dog were the liver, thyroid, and red blood cells (RBCs). The most consistent findings across species and studies were decreased red blood cell parameters and increased liver, thyroid, adrenal, and spleen weights. Increases in thyroid and adrenal weights were observed in the rat chronic oral study. Thyroid weights were also increased in the dog following chronic exposure, but no accompanying histopathology was observed. The effects of methoxyfenozide on the blood in mammals (methemoglobinemia, decreased red blood cell parameters, Heinz body formation) are consistent with those of other hydrazine compounds.

Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in the rat did not show evidence of potential neurotoxicity. In the acute study, decreased hindlimb grip strength on day 0 was reported in males. This finding was only observed at the limit dose in males and was not observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study and was therefore not considered evidence of neurotoxicity. No clinical signs of neurotoxicity or neurohistopathology were observed in other guideline studies.

No maternal or developmental effects were observed in either the rat or rabbit oral developmental toxicity studies. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, parental effects were limited to increased liver weight and microscopic periportal hypertrophy. No offspring or reproductive toxicity was observed. In a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in the rat, no immunotoxicity was observed.

There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat dietary 24-month chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study or the mouse dietary 18-month carcinogenicity study. No mutagenic or clastogenic potential was observed in the battery of genotoxicity studies on methoxyfenozide. Based on these findings, methoxyfenozide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by methoxyfenozide as well as the No-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Methoxyfenozide. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed New Section 3 Use on Pineapple” at p. 34 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0476.

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

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for methoxyfenozide used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, (R&O), FCC 14-71, adopted on June 3, 2014 and released on June 4, 2014. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In this Second Report and Order (R&O), we make minor changes to our rules that restrict the volume of television commercials. It is our hope that these changes will result in a modest decrease in the perceived loudness of certain commercials. 1 Specifically, as required by the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, 2 we incorporate by reference the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC)  3 March 12, 2013 A/85:2013 Recommended Practice (RP) (Successor RP), 4 which is the successor document to the July 25, 2011 A/85:2011 Recommended Practice (Current RP), incorporated into our rules in 2011. 5 As discussed below, the Successor RP will become mandatory on June 4, 2015. 6 Until this date, parties must, at a minimum, comply with the Current RP that was incorporated into our rules in 2011; however, as provided in the Order accompanying the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ), 7 prior to that date, parties may instead choose to comply with the updated loudness measurement method contained in the Successor RP, rather than the method contained in the Current RP.

2. The Commission's rules implementing the CALM Act, adopted December 13, 2011, 8 require digital TV broadcasters, digital cable operators, satellite TV providers, and other digital MVPDs to ensure that the commercials they transmit to viewers comply with the television industry's 2011 ATSC A/85 Recommended Practice (RP), 9 which describes how the industry can monitor and control the loudness level of digital TV programming. As mandated by the statute, 10 the Commission incorporated into its rules by reference and made mandatory the 2011 ATSC A/85 RP. 11 The rules took effect on December 13, 2012.

3. Section 2(a) of the CALM Act mandates that the Commission's rules incorporate by reference and make mandatory “any successor” to the RP. 12 On March 12, 2013, the ATSC published a successor document to its 2011 A/85 RP. As described by the ATSC, the Successor RP applies an improved loudness measurement algorithm to conform to the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU)  13 updated BS.1770 measurement algorithm, “BS.1770-3.”  14 BS.1770-3 employs “gating” that will exclude very quiet or silent passages of a commercial when calculating the average loudness of that commercial. 15 Use of the new algorithm may reduce the volume of some commercials in certain circumstances. 16 The Successor RP also contains other minor changes that do not affect our rules. 17

4. On November 1, 2013, we released the FNPRM in this docket. The FNPRM proposed to replace the Current RP, incorporated into our rules in 2011, with the Successor RP published in 2013, 18 observing that the CALM Act afforded the Commission no discretion in this regard. 19 The FNPRM sought comment on the appropriate timing for the 2013 Successor RP to become mandatory. 20 We received two comments in response to our FNPRM. 21

5. As required by the statute, 22 we adopt the Successor RP and will incorporate it by reference into our rules. 23 We also find, as we tentatively concluded in the FNPRM, that the only substantive change created by the Successor RP as it relates to our rules is the change to the measurement algorithm to conform to BS.1770-3. 24 This finding is consistent with the ATSC's description of the Successor RP and is not disputed in the record. As a practical matter, this change seems to be designed to prevent advertisers from using silent passages to offset excessively loud passages when calculating the average loudness of program material. Thus, once this Successor RP is implemented, consumers may notice a modest decrease in the perceived loudness of certain commercials. This change is consistent with the type of updates that we believe Congress intended the Commission to incorporate in its rules by specifying in the CALM Act that the Commission shall make mandatory successor versions of the RP.

6. We adopt the proposal in the FNPRM to make the Successor RP mandatory as of June 4, 2015, one year from the release date of this Second Report and Order. 25 NAB, the only commenter on this issue, supports this approach. 26 We are mindful of the fact that many parties have recently purchased new equipment to comply with the Commission's rules implementing the statute, which took effect on December 13, 2012. Notably, NAB's survey of a number of its television members indicated “that most equipment deployed to comply with the A/85 RP can likely be modified through relatively low-cost software upgrades to comply with the Successor RP.”  27 Therefore, we agree with NAB that a one-year deadline to comply with the Successor RP would generally provide a reasonable amount of time for affected parties to implement any necessary equipment upgrades. 28 To the extent certain regulated parties have purchased equipment that is not easily upgradable or could otherwise show that implementation of the Successor RP would be significantly burdensome, we will consider requests for additional time to comply with the Successor RP, 29 pursuant to our general waiver authority in Section 2(b)(3) of the CALM Act. 30 We remind stations and MVPDs that such a waiver, if granted, would extend the time to come into compliance with the Successor RP but would require continued compliance with the Current RP.

7. We reject the request by Holston Valley et al. to extend the existing financial hardship waivers in effect until one year after the Successor RP becomes mandatory. 31 The CALM Act provides that the Commission may grant a one-year waiver of the effective date of the CALM Act rules to any station or MVPD that shows it would be a “financial hardship” to obtain the necessary equipment to comply with the rules, and may renew such waiver for one additional year. 32 Stations and MVPDs that obtained an initial financial hardship waiver were afforded until December 13, 2013 to comply with the CALM Act rules, and those that renewed their financial hardship waiver have until December 13, 2014 to comply with the CALM Act rules. The Holston Valley et al. request appears to argue that the gap between when stations and MVPDs must comply with the CALM Act rules and Current RP (December 13, 2014) and when stations and MVPDs must comply with the Successor RP (one year from the release date of this Order) will cause entities in this situation to “pay twice for the equipment and software package needed to comply with the CALM Act.”  33 Holston Valley et al. have not explained why a station or MVPD with a waiver delaying compliance with the CALM Act rules until December 13, 2014 cannot obtain by December 13, 2014 either equipment that complies with the Successor RP or equipment that complies with the Current RP but that is upgradeable to the Successor RP. Thus, it is not clear to us why entities still in the process of coming into compliance would end up paying twice. Because most currently available equipment will be compliant with the Successor RP—and regulated entities can ensure that they purchase equipment that complies (or can be easily upgraded to comply) with the Successor RP—we are not persuaded that this gap will pose any problems to regulated entities. Therefore, to the extent the regulated entity has not yet purchased the necessary equipment to comply with the CALM Act, we see no reason why such entity could not ensure that the equipment it does purchase (before its financial hardship waiver expires) will comply with the Successor RP. 34 To the extent the regulated entity has purchased equipment that is not easily upgradable, such entity may seek more time to comply with the Successor RP (as described above). We emphasize, however, that all regulated entities with existing financial hardship waivers must comply with the CALM Act rules when their financial hardship waivers expire, whether in accordance with the Current RP or the Successor RP depending upon the timing.

8. Finally, consistent with the Commission's decision in the Order accompanying the FNPRM, we will continue to permit stations and MVPDs the option to implement the Successor RP early. We expect that some stations and MVPDs may be able and willing to implement the Successor RP in less time than the year allowed for them to come into compliance with the new standard. Pursuant to the waiver granted in the Order accompanying the FNPRM, which will remain in effect until the effective date of the new standard, stations and MVPDs may comply with our existing rules by following either the BS.1770-1 measurement method in the Current RP or the BS.1770-3 updated measurement method in the Successor RP. Although the change in the measurement method is minor, we believe that consumers may benefit from early implementation of the improved loudness measurement technique incorporated into the Successor RP.

9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)  35 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding. 36 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments that specifically addressed the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 37

10. This Second Report and Order adopts minor rule changes to the Commission's Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act rules. Specifically, as required by the CALM Act, 38 the Commission incorporates by reference into the rules the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC)  39 March 12, 2013 A/85:2013 Recommended Practice (RP) (Successor RP), 40 which is the successor document to the July 25, 2011 A/85:2011 Recommended Practice (Current RP), incorporated into our rules in 2011. 41 The Successor RP will become mandatory on June 4, 2015. 42 Until this date, the Current RP that was incorporated into our rules in 2011 will continue to be mandatory; however, prior to that date, parties may instead choose to follow the loudness measurement method contained in the Successor RP, rather than that in the Current RP. As mandated by the statute, the rule changes will apply to television station broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). 43

11. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA.

12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules will apply. 44 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  45 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 46 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 47 The final rule changes adopted herein will directly affect small television broadcast stations and small MVPD systems, which include cable operators and satellite video providers. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

13. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”  48 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting businesses: those having $35.5 million or less in annual receipts. 49 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,386. 50 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on June 10, 2013, about 1,245 (or about 90 percent) the estimated 1,386 commercial television stations had revenues of $35.5 million or less. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396. 51 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. 52 Therefore, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities.

14. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations  53 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

15. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services”. 54 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. 55 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. 56 Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 57 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

16. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. 58 Industry data shows that there were 1,141 cable companies at the end of June 2012. 59 Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard. 60 In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 61 Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide. 62 Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.

17. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000”. 63 There are approximately 56.4 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today. 64 Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 65 Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard. 66 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. 67 Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

18. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 68 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 69 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. 70 Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 71 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. 72 Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. 73 Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

19. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 74 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 75 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. 76 Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 77 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

20. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. 78 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, 79 OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.”  80 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. 81 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. 82 Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 83 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service. 84 Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. 85 The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

21. As stated above, the Second Report and Order incorporates by reference into our rules and ultimately makes mandatory the Successor RP published in 2013, thereby replacing the Current RP incorporated into our rules in 2011. As discussed in the Second Report and Order, the only substantive change created by the Successor RP as it relates to our rules is the change to the measurement algorithm to be used when calculating the average loudness of a commercial. Under the Current RP, television stations and MVPDs use the BS.1770-1 measurement method, whereas, under the Successor RP, stations and MVPDs will use the BS.1770-3 method. The primary difference is that BS.1770-3 employs “gating” that will exclude very quiet or silent passages of a commercial when calculating the average loudness of that commercial. As a result, stations and MVPDs may need a software or device upgrade for their equipment in order to perform the new loudness measurement technique. The Second Report and Order does not otherwise impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. 86

22. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. 87

23. The CALM Act requires that the new technical loudness standard ( i.e., the 2011 ATSC A/85 RP) be made mandatory for all stations and MVPDs, regardless of size. 88 The statute also requires that the Commission make mandatory “any successor” to the ATSC A/85 RP, affording the Commission no discretion in this regard. 89 However, in this proceeding, the Commission found that it had some discretion to afford a reasonable amount of time for regulated parties to implement the Successor RP. The record in this proceeding indicates “that most equipment deployed to comply with the A/85 RP can likely be modified through relatively low-cost software upgrades to comply with the Successor RP.”  90 Accordingly, the Commission affords regulated parties with one year from the release date of the Second Report and Order to implement any necessary equipment upgrades. In addition, to the extent a regulated entity has purchased equipment that is not easily upgradable, such entity may request more time to comply with the Successor RP. We note, however, that no party filed comments that it had purchased equipment that was not easily upgradable, even though the FNPRM expressly sought such comment. Therefore, we believe that the final rules adopted in the Second Report and Order will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”  91

24. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 92 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . 93

25. This document does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 94 In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. 95

26. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 96

27. For more information, contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142 or Shabnam Javid, Shabnam.Javid@fcc.gov, of the Engineering Division, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2672. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.

28. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-311, 124 Stat. 3294, and Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), and 303(r), and 621, this Second Report and Order is adopted.

29. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby amended, effective June 4, 2015.

30. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to Congress and the General Accounting Office.

31. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 73 and 76 as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

On April 23, 2013, NMFS published a final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858). Amendment 18B to the FMP established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery and allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL among two gear groups, the longline and hook-and-line components.

The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 135,324 lb (61,382 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2014, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(ii).

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish when the hook-and-line component's commercial ACL (commercial quota) has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic will have been reached by August 29, 2014. Accordingly, the commercial hook-and-line component for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.

The commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish closed on March 5, 2014, for the remainder of the fishing season, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015 (79 FR 12411, March 5, 2014). Furthermore, recreational harvest for golden tilefish closed on June 7, 2014, for the remainder of the fishing season, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015 (79 FR 32498, June 5, 2014). Therefore, because the commercial longline component and the recreational sector are already closed, and NMFS is closing the hook-and-line component through this temporary rule, all fishing for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.

The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having golden tilefish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014. During the closure, the sale or purchase of golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of golden tilefish that were harvested by hook-and-line, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, August 29, 2014, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for golden tilefish would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best available scientific information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.

Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

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

The 2014 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI is 6,035 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 500 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 5,535 mt as incidental catch. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the BSAI.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Kamchatka flounder to directed fishing in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 21, 2014.

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

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