Table of Contents I. Procedural Background II. Background III. Discussion of Changes IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards V. Agreement State Compatibility VI. Plain Writing VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification X. Regulatory Analysis XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality XII. Congressional Review Act XIII. Availability of Documents I. Procedural Background

This direct final rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on December 17, 2014. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by November 3, 2014, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the proposed rule section of this issue of the Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [ Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33121), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1032.

By letter dated October 13, 2011, and as supplemented on May 23, 2012, January 24, April 18, and July 23, 2013, Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec or the applicant) submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1032. The amendment adds a new heat load pattern for the MPC-37, broadens the back pressure range for MPC-37 and MPC-89, and updates certain definitions related to fuel classification. Also, the amendment makes a correction to the expiration date of CoC No. 1032.

As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 1 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

The amended Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032 under 10 CFR 72.212.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this direct final rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 1 adds a new heat load pattern for the multipurpose canister MPC-37, broadens the back pressure range for MPC-37 and MPC-89, and updates certain definitions related to fuel classification. Also, the amendment makes a correction to the expiration date of CoC No. 1032.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 1 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Holtec International HI-STORM FW System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 1 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings in the SER for this amendment.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 1 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM FW System casks in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 1 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

Approval of Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM FLOOD/WIND System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Approval Number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33121), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No.1032.

On October 13, 2011, and as supplemented on May 23, 2012, January 24, 2013, April 18, 2013, and July 23, 2013, Holtec submitted an application to amend the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System as described in Section III of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 1 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System under the changes described in Amendment No. 1 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises the CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” The revision consists of Amendment No. 1 which adds a new heat load pattern for the MPC-37, broadens the back pressure range for MPC-37 and MPC-89, and updates certain definitions related to fuel classification. Also the amendment makes a correction to the expiration date of CoC No. 1032.

Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System was initiated by Holtec and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 1 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 1. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System, and the current Amendment continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 1, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1032 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.

This action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0102. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0102); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)). The Dodd-Frank Act substantially changed the federal legal framework with respect to consumer financial protection regulation. Among the many changes, section 1092 of the Dodd-Frank Act repealed NCUA's rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. 1 As a result, the Board is repealing NCUA's rules under part 706, titled “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.”

Despite the repeal of part 706, NCUA still has supervisory and enforcement authority regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, 2 which could include the practices previously addressed in part 706. NCUA may determine that statutory violations exist if federal credit unions engage in acts or practices that are prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act or the FTC Act. Such prohibited acts or practices may include, but are not limited to:

• Including confessions of judgment, waivers of exemptions, wage assignments, or security interests on household goods in consumer contracts;

• Misrepresenting the nature or extent of cosigner liability; and

• Pyramiding late fees.

In November 2013, the Board approved a restructuring of NCUA's central office. This restructuring consisted of transferring certain functions from one office to another and establishing the Office of Continuity and Security Management (OCSM). OCSM performs all security-related functions that were formerly the responsibility of several different offices. The core functions of OCSM are national continuity programs, emergency management and physical security, personnel security, and intelligence and information security. As a result of this and other organizational changes described in section II, the Board is making a number of conforming technical amendments to NCUA's regulations.

In September 2010, the Board amended its general lending regulation to enable federal credit unions (FCUs) to offer payday alternative loans (PAL loans). 3 PAL loans serve as a viable alternative to predatory payday loans and can help members break free of their dependency on high-cost predatory payday loans. The Board encourages FCUs to make PAL loans available for their members who need them, provided they are offered in a safe and sound manner. To be more readily understood, NCUA is amending the current terminology used to describe this type of loan. Specifically, § 701.21 currently refers to these loans as “short-term, small amount loans” or “STS loans.” The Board believes that replacing that terminology with “payday alternative loans” or “PAL loans” more accurately reflects the nature and purpose of this loan product. The updated terminology also is more consistent with the way NCUA and some industry stakeholders currently refer to this loan product. This important loan product deserves nomenclature that more precisely describes its function and is more readily understood.

As discussed above, in response to changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act, this final rule repeals 12 CFR part 706.

As discussed above, the Board is amending part 790 of NCUA's regulations to conform it to NCUA's current central and field office structures.

The Office of Continuity and Security Management (OCSM), created in November 2013, began operating in January 2014. It was created to aggregate all of the agency's security-related functions into one office. The primary consolidated functions are continuity of operations planning, physical security, and personnel security. Also, NCUA put in place an additional security function to address national security issues affecting the financial services industry. All federal agencies are required to comply with various statutes and Executive Orders related to the safeguarding of national assets. Through OCSM, NCUA will be able to more efficiently respond to these federal mandates and conduct its security-related functions.

The final rule amends Part 790 to add a new paragraph describing OCSM and its functions.

The final rule amends the description of the Office of Chief Financial Officer to add strategic planning as one of its duties. NCUA shifted this duty from another office to better utilize staffing resources.

The final rule amends the description of the Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) to reflect that the office now has four divisions. The Board added two divisions within OCP to more efficiently balance and structure the office's workload. In addition, NCUA deleted the duties of the Ombudsman from OCP's description. The Executive Director's office now supervises the Ombudsman.

The Board established the Ombudsman position in April 1995, as required by the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. The Ombudsman operates as an objective third party to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved at the operational level. In 2013, the Board elevated the position of the Ombudsman to the Executive Director's office. It is supervised by the Executive Director's office and reports directly to the Board. Previously, OCP oversaw the Ombudsman's duties, and the Ombudsman reported to the Director of OCP.

NCUA realigned its regional offices effective January 1, 2014. This was designed to create geographically compact districts that balance workload, improve efficiency, and reduce travel costs. In addition, the new regional structure coincides with other changes to strengthen NCUA's supervision, such as the creation of the Office of National Examinations and Supervision. Each NCUA region now has approximately an equal number of examiners, in addition to supervision, special actions, and support personnel.

The Board is updating the table in § 790.2(c)(1)(i), indicating the states that each region is responsible for supervising. Nine states have been transferred among the NCUA regional offices for the reasons noted above. 4 The changes are as follows:

• Wisconsin is in Region I;

• Ohio is in Region II;

• Arkansas and Louisiana are in Region III;

• Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming are in Region IV and

• California is in Region V.

Lastly, the territory of American Samoa is no longer listed in § 790.2(c)(1)(i) as NCUA no longer supervises any credit unions in that jurisdiction.

As discussed above, the Board is amending NCUA's payday alternative loans regulation to replace the terms “short-term, small amount loans” and “STS loans” with the terms “payday alternative loans” and “PAL loans” to more accurately reflect the nature and purpose of this loan product and to make it more readily understood.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $50 million in assets). 5 This final rule only makes non-substantive, technical changes. NCUA certifies that these technical amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. 6 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. NCUA has determined that the technical amendments in this final rule do not increase the paperwork requirements under PRA or regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule 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. NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 7

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996  8 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 9 NCUA has submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for it to determine if the final rule is a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. NCUA does not believe the rule is major.

Generally, the APA requires a federal agency to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. The amendments in this rule are non-substantive and technical, or involve only matters relating to management and personnel and are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements. 10 They reflect changes to NCUA's organizational structure, remove duplicative and imprecise language, make minor changes updating cross citations, and make minor changes which are statutorily required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The APA permits an agency to forego the notice and comment period under certain circumstances, such as when a rulemaking is technical and non-substantive. NCUA finds that, in this instance, notice and public comment are unnecessary under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA. 11 NCUA also finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement under section 553(d)(3) of the APA. 12 The rule, therefore, will be effective immediately upon publication.

For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR parts 701, 706, and 790 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79338).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-16, dated June 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The related investigative action is a general visual inspection of the AC power feeder cables and the hydraulic line for damage due to chafing. The corrective actions include repair of chafed parts, and replacement of missing clamps. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1067-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Horizon Air requested that we change the language in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013) from mandating the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013, to mandating only the section of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013, that corrects the unsafe condition. Horizon Air stated that the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, “Job Set-up,” and Part C, “Close Out,” have nothing to do with correcting the unsafe condition. Horizon Air expressed that mandating operators to perform these sections adds an unnecessary regulatory requirement because operators must have the airplane in a specific condition, and keep it in that condition, while performing the corrective action. Horizon Air also stated that, if the FAA keeps the requirements of job setup and job close-out, it forces an operator to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if it chooses to deviate from the work-steps. Horizon Air provided its cost estimate of obtaining an AMOC.

In this case, we agree with the commenter's request to exclude the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require accomplishment of paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013.

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 (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013), 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 (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), in which 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, TCCA, or Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). Where necessary throughout this AD, we also replaced any reference to approvals of corrective actions with a reference to the Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph.

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 discussed previously, 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.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 79338, December 30, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,260, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $11, for a cost of $181 per product. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair of the AC power feeder cables and hydraulic lines specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1067; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February 4, 2010). AD 2010-03-05 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200C and -200F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30486). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the upper deck floor beams are subject to WFD, the existing inspection program is not sufficient to maintain an acceptable level of safety, and the upper chords of the upper deck floor beams in section 42 are subject to the identified unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to add post-replacement inspections for section 41 and reduce certain compliance times. The NPRM also proposed to add repetitive inspections of the upper chords of the upper deck floor beams in section 42, repetitive replacements of the upper chords, post-replacement inspections, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the upper chords and straps (or angles) of the floor beams, which could lead to failure of the floor beams and consequent loss of controllability, rapid decompression, and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing stated that it concurs with the contents of the NPRM (79 FR 30486, May 28, 2014).

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30486, May 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 30486, May 28, 2014).

We estimate that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 94-12-03, Amendment 39-8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994). AD 94-12-03 applied to Model A320 series airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 003 through 092 inclusive. These serial numbers apply to Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10707).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0122, dated June 5, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

As an option to extend the repetitive inspection interval, after the first detailed inspection is accomplished and on condition of no crack findings, this AD allows operators to remove the four titanium angles, perform a rototest for cracking on the open holes and, provided no cracks are found on the open holes, install new titanium angles, followed by post-modification detailed inspections of the new titanium angles.

For any titanium angle crack findings, this AD requires removing any cracked angle, performing a rototest for cracking on the open holes and, provided no cracks are found, installing a new titanium angle, followed by detailed inspections of the new titanium angles.

For any open hole cracking found during any rototest required by this AD, this AD requires repairing any cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

This AD expands the applicability of AD 94-12-03, Amendment 39-8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994), to include all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0058-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 10707, February 26, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we extend the compliance time for the inspection of the titanium angles specified in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 10707, February 26, 2014). DAL stated that extending this compliance time from 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, to 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, would match the repetitive interval for the detailed inspection on those airplanes that have not had the modification accomplished, and it would give DAL and other operators the opportunity to schedule these inspections in a hangar environment.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. DAL has not provided data to substantiate that extending this compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. This compliance time was developed after analyzing risk to the fleet, availability of in-service information and feasibility of performing inspection. We consider the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence, to calculate appropriate compliance times. However, under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

DAL requested that we add a provision in the NPRM (79 FR 10707, February 26, 2014) to allow operators to ferry airplanes with cracking found during the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. DAL stated that a ferry flight would allow an airplane to be moved to a more suitable location for maintenance in the event damage is found. DAL also stated that the ferry flight is necessary due to the extensive level of access and disassembly.

We agree with the intent behind the commenter's request, but find it unnecessary to include a special flight provision in this AD. Special flight permits are currently allowed under Section 39.23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.23), unless specifically prohibited or limited by an AD. No change is necessary to this final rule in this regard.

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 10707, February 26, 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 10707, February 26, 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, 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.

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 available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule 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 10707, February 26, 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 10707, February 26, 2014).

We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that were required by AD 94-12-03, Amendment 39-8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994), and retained in this AD take about 288 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $1,045 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 94-12-03 is $25,525 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic new 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 $506,345, or $595 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition and optional 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-2014-0058; 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 Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-21, dated July 10, 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-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

On July 24, 2014, the FAA issued AD 2014-15-17, Amendment 39-17919 (79 FR 44268, July 31, 2014), for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. AD 2014-15-17 requires revising the airplane flight manual to incorporate temporary revisions that introduce additional limitations for operation of taxi and landing lights. AD 2014-15-17 requires revising the airplane flight manual only for Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 and subsequent. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any fuel leak in the right-hand landing lights compartment, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, for Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5906, 5910, 5912, 5917, 5919 through 5932 inclusive, 5934, 5935, 5939, 5940, 5942, and 5948.

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

The MCAI and Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014, do not specify corrective actions if any cut is found on the wires or if any damage is found on the O-rings during certain related investigative actions. This AD requires that a replacement be done using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

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 fuel leaks in the right-hand landing lights compartment, in combination with the heat generated by the taxi lights and landing lights on the ground reaching the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel, could result in ignition of any fuel or fumes present in the right-hand landing lights compartment. 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-2014-0650; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-162-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

This AD is considered to be interim action. We are currently considering requiring a replacement of the connector of the fuel boost pump canister of the APU, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions, which will constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the replacement and applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

We estimate that this AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $15,640, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 22 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,870 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2014 (79 FR 30748). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked rib cap castellations. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for castellation and skin clips cracked or damaged between stringers and cracked stringer clips of the wing box pylon back-up structure, and front spar to rear spar; repetitive inspections for cracking, damage, or failure of the pylon back-up torque box structure; repetitive inspections for cracking or damage of the wing box external areas at the drag brace aft wing fitting; repetitive inspections of the outer surface of the wing upper and lower skins for cracks or damage along the rib attachment at the fastener holes and between the two rows of attachment; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked or damaged rib cap castellations, which could degrade the structural capabilities of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 30748, May 29, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30748, May 29, 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 30748, May 29, 2014).

We estimate that this AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by amending the controlling agency name for the following Restricted Areas located in California: R-2502N Fort Irwin, CA, R-2505 China Lake, CA, R-2506 China Lake South, CA, R-2508 Complex, CA, R-2515 Muroc Lake, CA, and R-2524 Trona, CA. The controlling agency for these restricted areas is changed from “FAA, Hi-Desert TRACON, Edwards AFB, CA” to “FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB, CA.”

This is an administrative change to update the name of the controlling agency for the above listed restricted areas. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the descriptions of restricted areas to reflect current facility names.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the controlling agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

Through a final rule published on September 7, 2012, at 77 FR 5512, HUD revised and updated the regulations for FHA's Section 232 program, regulations that had not been revised since 1996. HUD revised the Section 232 program regulations to reflect current policy and practices, and improve accountability and strengthen risk management in the Section 232 program.

Included in the updates made by the 2012 rulemaking were revisions to 24 CFR 5.801 (Uniform Financial Reporting Standards) and 24 CFR 232.1009 (Financial Reports), both of which contained reporting requirements applicable to the Section 232 program. HUD revised these regulatory sections to include operators of projects insured or held by HUD as entities that must submit financial statements to HUD. Owners and borrowers have long been required to submit financial reports. Sections 5.801(c)(4) and 232.1009 provide that operators must submit financial statements to HUD quarterly within 30 calendar days of the date of the end of each fiscal quarter, and 60 calendar days from the end of the fiscal-year-end. The other entities in the Section 232 program required to submit reports were provided slightly longer periods to prepare and submit the reports than that provided to operators. Accordingly, the September 7, 2012, rule placed operators on a different submission deadline than that required of owners.

HUD's interim rule published on September 16, 2014, at 79 FR 55360, revised the financial reporting deadlines for operators to bring them in-line with the reporting periods prescribed in HUD's Uniform Financial Reporting Standards, to which owners and borrowers are subject. The interim rule increases the amount of time operators have to comply with the reporting requirements provided in §§ 5.801(c)(4) and 232.1009. The interim rule provides that operators will have an additional 30 calendar days to comply with the financial statement reporting requirements. Operators will now have 60 calendar days following the end of a fiscal quarter and 90 calendar days following the end of the fiscal-year-end quarter to comply with HUD's financial statement reporting requirements.

Section 5.801(d)(4) of HUD's Uniform Financial Reporting Standards regulations provides that operators of projects with Section 232 insured mortgages (the entities described in § 5.801(a)(6)) must comply with the requirements of § 5.801 with respect to fiscal years commencing on or after the date that is 60 calendar days after the date on which HUD announces, through Federal Register notice, that it has issued guidance on the manner in which these reports will be transmitted to HUD.

This document serves as the notice required by § 5.801(d)(4) that HUD has issued guidance on the manner in which the operator financial reports will be transmitted to HUD. That guidance can be found under the Guidance for Lenders' Operator Financial Statement section at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/federal_housing_administration/healthcare_facilities/residential_care . Accordingly, operators must comply with the operator financial report requirements for fiscal years commencing on or after December 2, 2014.

The information collection requirements contained in this rule were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-0605. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Three Rivers Towing Association Head of the Ohio Regatta listed in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1, Entry No. 31; Sector Ohio Valley.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Entry No. 31; Sector Ohio Valley is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Pittsburgh or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

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

Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners MM Mile Marker NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule.

On September 16, 2014 demolition will begin on the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge at mile 5.3 Tennessee River, creating a hazardous condition. This situation requires immediate emergency safety measures to protect persons and property, and a safety zone is in effect to stop all vessel traffic from transiting from mile 4.8 to mile 5.8 Tennessee River. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the Captain of the Port and requests to deviate and transit through this area may be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Once demolition and recovery of bridge debris is completed, the safety zone will be canceled. Delaying this rulemaking to provide a comment period before implementing the necessary safety zone would be contrary to the public interest by delaying the immediate action needed to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from the potential damage and safety hazards associated with the demolition of this bridge.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this emergency rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Providing 30 days notice would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated safety concerns of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge demolition at mile 5.3 Tennessee River.

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

The purpose of this safety zone is to protect persons and vessels from the bridge demolition operations, which pose a significant safety hazard at mile 5.3 Tennessee River. For this reason, the Coast Guard is prohibiting entry into this zone by all vessels during the enforcement period unless authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Tennessee River from mile 4.8 to 5.8, extending the entire width of the river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons unless specifically authorized by the COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

This rule is effective and enforceable with actual notice on September 16, 2014 through October 31, 2014, or until all demolition debris has been removed from the waterway and deemed to no longer pose a threat to the public. At that time the safety zone will be canceled. Any exceptions to these operational restrictions must be authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-5422.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for vessels on all waters of the Tennessee River, extending the entire width from mile 4.8 to 5.8. Notifications to the marine community will be made through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM). The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal as the restrictions will be enforced only as necessary while demolition and debris recovery operations of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge, mile 5.3 Tennessee River, are conducted. After demolition and debris recovery operations are complete, the safety zone will be canceled. Additionally, deviation from the safety zone restriction may be requested from the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Tennessee River from mile 4.8 to 5.8 from September 16, 2014 through October 31, 2014. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Traffic in this area is limited to almost entirely recreational vessels and commercial towing vessels, and the restrictions will be enforced only as necessary while the demolition and debris removal of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge is being conducted. When this is completed, the safety zone will be canceled. Deviation from the safety zone restriction may be requested from the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the creation of a safety zone in response to an emergency situation. The safety zone is implemented to protect persons and property due to a structurally deficient bridge at mile 5.3 Tennessee River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be made available as indicated under the ADDRESSES section.

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as publishing an NPRM is impracticable given that the final details for this event were not received by the Coast Guard until September 8, 2014, and this exercise is scheduled to take place from October 16, 2014 to October 24, 2014. Further, allowing this event to go forward without these safety zones in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with this exercise contrary to the public interest. Vessels transiting or attempting to transit through these areas may be at risk, and therefore the safety zones are needed to protect the public from the hazards associated with this exercise. Therefore, delay in taking action is both impracticable and contrary to public interest.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register as any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and property from the hazards associated with the naval exercise.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

From October 16, 2014, until October 24, 2014, a Navy exercise will take place in a portion of the Delaware Bay and the North Atlantic Ocean near Cape May, New Jersey. This regulation is necessary because of the ongoing hazards associated with the exercise. Once operations are concluded, an informational broadcast will inform mariners that the saftey zone is no longer being enforced. The Captain of the Port is establishing this safety zone to ensure the safety of life and property of all mariners and vessels transiting the local area.

To mitigate the risks associated with the Navy exercise, the Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay will enforce temporary safety zones in Delaware Bay and the North Atlantic Ocean near Cape May, New Jersey. The safety zones will encompass two areas within Delaware Bay and one area in the North Atlantic Ocean.

The first safety zone will encompass all waters of the Delaware Bay, bounded by a line connecting the following points; latitude 38°54′10″ N, longitude 075°03′12″ W thence north to latitude 39°02′24″ N, longitude 075°02′38″ W thence east to latitude 39°02′24″ N, longitude 075°01′42″ W thence southeast to latitude 38°54′22″ N, longitude 075°01′18″ W thence west to point of origin.

The second safety zone will encompass all waters of the Delaware Bay bounded by a line connecting the following points; latitude 38°54′17″ N, longitude 075°07′50″ W thence northwest to latitude 39°04′06″ N, longitude 075°13′54″ W thence northeast to latitude 39°04′39″ N, longitude 074°12′39″ W thence southeast to latitude 38°55′04″ N, longitude 075°06′38″ W thence southwest to point of origin.

The third safety zone will encompass a portion of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line connecting the following points; latitude 38°49′57″ N, longitude 074°47′41″ W thence northeast to latitude 38°54′28″ N, longitude 074°43′15″ W thence southeast to latitude 38°54′11″ N, longitude 074°42′45″ W thence southwest to latitude 38°49′39″ N, longitude 074°47′10″ W thence northwest to point of origin, off the coast of Cape May, NJ.

All of the safety zones will be effective and enforced from October 16, 2014 to October 24, 2014 from 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. each day. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) the Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) this rule will be enforced until the area is deemed safe to transit.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along a portion of Delaware Bay and North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Cape May, New Jersey from October 16, 2014 to October 24, 2014 from 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. each day, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port once all operations are completed. Once operations are concluded, an informational broadcast will inform mariners that the safety zone is no longer being enforced.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: the zone is limited in size and duration. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Delaware River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. The zones will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Delaware Bay and North Atlantic Ocean in vicinity of Cape May, New Jersey, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters until the exercise is complete. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials “Act” or “CAA” mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words “EPA”, “we”, “us” or “our” mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials “SIP” mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The words “Washington” and “State” mean the State of Washington.

Title I of the CAA, as amended by Congress in 1990, specifies the general requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain or maintain the NAAQS and the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. On January 27, 2014, Ecology submitted updates to portions of Chapter 173-400 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) currently in the Federally-approved Washington SIP (40 CFR part 52, subpart WW). Ecology did not submit to the EPA those sections of Chapter 173-400 WAC that have not changed since the last SIP approval by the EPA. Ecology also did not submit certain provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA. The SIP revisions covered by this action are explained in more detail in the proposed rulemaking, along with an evaluation of how these rules comply with the CAA requirements for SIPs (79 FR 39351, July 10, 2014). Also included in the proposed rulemaking is a discussion of how the EPA intends to act on the remainder of Ecology's submittal, covering the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and visibility permitting programs for major sources. See also the EPA's proposed rulemaking on the NNSR-specific provisions (79 FR 43345, July 25, 2014).

The EPA received one set of comments on its proposal.

Comment: The commenter pointed to another rulemaking action in which Ecology stated that a notice of construction (NOC)  1 approval order issued under WAC 173-400-113(1) does not need to include conditions requiring compliance with federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), but that WAC 173-400-113(1) instead only requires that Ecology determine, prior to issuance of an NOC approval order, that the new or modified source in an attainment area will comply with the NSPS and NESHAP. The commenter states that the EPA's approval of WAC 173-400-113(1) into the Washington SIP therefore would “give a green light” to a regulation that allows Ecology to omit conditions in orders that would require compliance with applicable NSPS and NESHAP. The commenter further states that, because conditions in orders issued under WAC 173-400 are applicable requirements under Ecology's title V operating permit program, Ecology's actions taken under WAC 173-400 directly impact Ecology's implementation of the CAA title V program in Washington. The commenter also raises concerns with Ecology's implementation of requirements under section 112 of the CAA, which addresses hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The commenter states that the EPA's approval of WAC 173-400-113(1) as part of the Washington SIP would add EPA concurrence to Ecology's ability to remove a HAP (in particular, radionuclides) from section 112 of the CAA and thereby to remove all federally-enforceable requirements controlling emissions of that particular HAP from regulation under title V of the CAA in Washington. The commenter also questions whether the EPA has authority to make enforceable under federal law a provision in a state regulation giving Ecology the ability to omit applicable NSPS and NESHAPs requirements from an NOC approval order and the ability to move enforcement of federal requirements regulating a HAP from the CAA to a state regulation that is both unenforceable under federal law and unenforceable by Ecology.

Response: The EPA disagrees that Ecology's SIP is deficient if new source review permits issued under the SIP do not include NSPS or NESHAP requirements. In this action, the EPA is approving WAC 173-400-113(1) for purposes of implementing the requirements of Section 110 of the CAA, particularly, the minor new source review requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160. Neither that CAA section nor that CFR provision require minor new source review permits to contain NSPS and NESHAPs requirements. Indeed, this action does not address the WAC provisions associated with implementation of sections 111 and 112. Washington has not submitted for inclusion into the SIP and the EPA has not approved into the SIP WAC 173-400-115, in which Ecology has incorporated by reference most of the NSPS as a matter of state law, or WAC 173-400-075, in which Ecology has incorporated by reference most of the NESHAP as a matter of state law. In this action, EPA is approving a state law provision related to implementation of CAA section 110. Section 110 focuses on implementation of the NAAQS. The NSPS and NESHAP are promulgated under other sections of the CAA (CAA sections 111 and 112, respectively), and any state programs implementing the NSPS and NESHAP for CAA purposes are submitted and approved by EPA under those other statutory authorities. To the extent the comment raises questions regarding the adequacy of Ecology's title V, NSPS, or NEHSAP programs under the CAA, those issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which relates solely to whether the regulations submitted by Ecology meet the requirements for approval into the SIP under section 110 of the CAA. The EPA notes, with limited exceptions not relevant here, that the NSPS and NESHAP standards are federally enforceable against affected sources under the CAA independently of whether such standards have been adopted by a state as a matter of state law. In addition, they are also “applicable requirements” for purposes of the title V program, 40 CFR 70.2, and as such a title V permit must contain emission limitations and standards that assure compliance with any such applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance, 40 CFR 70.6(a).

The EPA is approving into the SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, the Ecology regulations listed in Table 1. It is important to note that Ecology did not submit for approval into the SIP certain provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC, generally because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, are not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or are not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA. These exceptions are noted in the “Explanation” column of the table. The EPA's review and approval of the revised WAC 173-400-110 through -113, 173-400-036, 173-400-171, and 173-400-560 in this action is not a determination that these revised regulations meet requirements for major sources such as a SIP-approved PSD permitting program (40 CFR 51.166), a SIP-approved major NNSR permitting program (40 CFR 51.165), or a SIP-approved visibility program (40 CFR 51.307). These regulations are marked with asterisks in Table 1. The EPA will evaluate these regulations for consistency with the requirements for major NSR permitting programs and visibility in a separate action.

As discussed in the proposed rulemaking for this action, with respect to WAC 173-400-020, Applicability, the EPA's approval for this action is limited to only those counties or sources where the Department of Ecology has direct jurisdiction. This action excludes sources subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) or local clean air agency jurisdiction. The counties where Ecology has direct jurisdiction are: Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman. The EPA also notes that under the SIP-approved provisions of WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-415-012, Ecology has direct, statewide jurisdiction for kraft pulping mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants. The EPA is updating 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW to reflect these changes.

EPA published a final rule document on June 2, 2014, (79 FR 31566) updating 40 CFR part 81, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes” for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas. This final rule included revisions to 40 CFR 81.350 to remove the tables titled “Wisconsin—PM 2.5 (Annual NAAQS)” and “Wisconsin—PM 2.5 [24-hour NAAQS]” and to add three tables titled “Wisconsin—1997 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” and “Wisconsin—1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” and “Wisconsin—2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)”. The entry for the Milwaukee-Racine designated area in the Wisconsin—2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS table erroneously indicated that the area was designated as nonattainment when, in fact, the area had been redesignated to attainment status on April 22, 2014. 79 FR 22415. Therefore, the entry for the Milwaukee-Racine area is being corrected to reflect the correct attainment designation.

40 CFR part 81 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

In FR Doc. 2014-18545 which appeared in the August 22, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 49853), titled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Fiscal Year 2015 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Reasonable Compensation Equivalents for Physician Services in Excluded Hospitals and Certain Teaching Hospitals; Provider Administrative Appeals and Judicial Review; Enforcement Provisions for Organ Transplant Centers; and Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program” (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in section IV. of this correcting document. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule that appeared in the August 22, 2014 Federal Register . Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2014.

On page 49865, in our discussion of the summary of costs and benefits of the payment adjustment of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program for FY 2015, we made a technical error in the amount by which overall payments would decrease.

On page 49918, in our discussion of new technology add-on payments, we made an error in the amount of the maximum add-on payment for Voraxaze®.

On page 49940, we made an error in our discussion of the FY 2015 new technology add-on payment for the CardioMEMS TM HF (Heart Failure) Monitoring System.

On pages 50246 through 50249, in the table titled “Previously Adopted Hospital IQR Program Measures And Measures Newly Finalized in this Final Rule for the FY 2017 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years,” we inadvertently listed VTE-3 as a “voluntary electronic clinical quality measure” only and inadvertently omitted PN-6 from the table, which should have been listed as a voluntary electronic clinical quality measure.

On pages 50279 and 52084, in our discussion of the PPS-exempt Cancer Hospital Quality Reporting Program (PCHQR), we provided a Web site link that is not functional due to a typographical error, and made other typographical and technical errors.

On pages 50298, 50302, and 50306, we made typographical and technical errors in our discussion of the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting (LTCHQR) Program.

On page 50335, we made typographical and technical errors in our discussion of organ transplant centers.

On page 50350, in the regulations text at § 405.1811(c) and § 405.1835(c), we made technical errors in specifying the requirements regarding a provider's right to contractor or Board hearings resulting from untimely contractor determinations.

In calculating the final FY 2015 IPPS operating and capital rates and impacts, we made two technical errors.

First, there was a technical error in our determination of payments under the postacute care transfer policy for certain MS-DRGs within the ratesetting process. Specifically, we inadvertently did not treat those MS-DRGs that qualified for a special payment under the postacute care transfer policy (see § 412.4(f)(6)) in FY 2015 as MS-DRGs subject to the postacute care transfer policy. Consequently, the FY 2015 transfer-adjusted case-mix indexes and cases used to model IPPS payments in the ratesetting process were incorrect, and resulted in a miscalculation of the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, capital Federal rates, and impacts for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. To conform with our established methodology, we are recalculating the FY 2015 transfer-adjusted case-mix indexes and cases used to model IPPS payments in the ratesetting process after properly treating those MS-DRGs that qualified for a special payment under the postacute care transfer policy in FY 2015 as MS-DRGs subject to the postacute care transfer policy. Therefore, we are recalculating the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, capital Federal rates, and impacts for FY 2015 using our established methodology.

The second error was the inadvertent error in identifying claims for indirect medical education (IME) payments for Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries (MA IME claims) in the ratesetting process for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Per the methodology established in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50422 through 50433), in order to identify IME MA claims, we first search the MedPAR file for all claims with an IME payment greater than zero. Then, we filter these claims for a subset of claims with a group health organization (GHO) paid indicator with a value of “1” or with the IME payment field equal to the DRG payment field. For the reasons described later in this section, in applying this methodology for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we did not identify certain MA IME claims using the filter for claims where the IME payment field is equal to the DRG payment field.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 requires mandatory across-the-board reductions in Federal spending, also known as sequestration. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 postponed sequestration for 2 months. As required by law, President Obama issued a sequestration order on March 1, 2013.

For FY 2015, we used claims from the FY 2013 MedPAR in our ratesetting process to determine the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, capital Federal rates, and the IPPS impact analyses presented in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Claims for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2013 had the 2-percent reduction for sequestration applied to the DRG payment field. As a result, in applying the methodology described previously for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we inadvertently did not properly identify certain claims for IME MA payments because the DRG payment field reflected the 2-percent reduction for sequestration (and therefore, the IME payment field did not equal the DRG payment field for those claims). As discussed in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50364 and 50365), under our established methodology, payments for MA IME claims are used in our operating IPPS budget neutrality calculations. Therefore, the inadvertent omission of these MA IME claims resulted in a miscalculation of the operating budget neutrality calculations. (We note this error did not affect the calculation of the outlier threshold or the MS-DRG relative weights because, under our established methodology for the respective calculations of these IPPS payment factors, we only include claims with a “Claim Type” of 60, and the claims that were not properly identified as MA IME claims did not have a “Claim Type” of 60.) We are recalculating the operating budget neutrality factors that are used to determine the standardized amounts for FY 2015 to conform with our established methodology as stated in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Specifically, for this correcting document, we are restoring the 2-percent reduction for sequestration to the DRG payment field in order to ensure that we properly identify all claims where the IME payment field is equal to the DRG payment field consistent with our established methodology.

As described previously, one or both of these two technical errors resulted in errors to our calculation of the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, capital Federal rates, and impacts. As a result of these technical errors we are correcting the following errors:

• In the operating and capital budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, capital Federal rates, and capital IPPS payment estimates that appear on the following pages of the Addendum of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule: 50367 through 50370, 50373 and 50374, 50380 through 50383, 50385 and 50386, 50388 through 50390, and 50404 (Tables 1A through 1D).

• In the data presented in the tables referred to in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and available via the Internet on the CMS Web site (see section II.D. of this correcting document).

• In the operating and capital impacts that appear in the following pages of the Appendices of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule: 50405, 50407, 50409 through 50418, 50420 through 50429, 50435 and 50436, and 50446.

The errors described previously also affect the calculation of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program payment adjustment factors and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program payment adjustment factors for FY 2015. The readmissions payment adjustment factor is based in part on a ratio of a hospital's “aggregate payment for excess readmissions” and its “aggregate payments for all discharges.” We use Medicare Part A inpatient claims from the MedPAR file as our data source for determining aggregate payments for excess readmissions and aggregate payments for all discharges. For FY 2015, we use MedPAR claims with discharge dates on or after July 1, 2010 and no later than June 30, 2013 to calculate the ratio used in determining the readmissions payment adjustment factors. Under the Hospital VBP Program, the Secretary reduces the base operating DRG payment amount for an eligible hospital for each discharge in a fiscal year by an applicable percent. The sum total of these reductions in a fiscal year must equal the total amount available for value-based incentive payments for all eligible hospitals for the fiscal year, as estimated by the Secretary. We use a linear exchange function to translate this estimated amount available into a value-based incentive payment percentage for each hospital, based on its total performance score (TPS). We then calculate the value-based incentive payment adjustment factor for each hospital and apply that factor to the base-operating DRG payment amount for each discharge occurring at that hospital in FY 2015 on a per claim basis. We finalized the methodology for using base operating DRG payment amounts derived from the MedPAR file in the calculation of the value-based incentive payment adjustment factors in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53574 and 53575). In the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50049), based on the March 2014 update of the FY 2013 MedPAR file (that is, MedPAR Part A claims with discharge dates on or after October 1, 2012 and on or before September 30, 2013), we estimated that the amount available for value-based incentive payments for FY 2015 is $1.4 billion (the applicable percent for the FY 2015 Hospital VBP Program is 1.50 percent).

We use the same methodology described previously to identify only Medicare Part A claims in the MedPAR file and to remove IME MA claims when calculating the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and the Hospital VBP Program payment adjustment factors. In addition, we use the claims in the MedPAR file to determine the base operating DRG payment amounts used in the calculation of these payment adjustment factors. Consequently, in determining the base-operating DRG payment amounts used in our calculation of the proxy readmissions adjustment factors (Table 15A) and the updated proxy Hospital VBP payment adjustment factors (Table 16A) for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we inadvertently failed to properly exclude all of the IME MA claims, and also inadvertently included the 2-percent sequestration reduction for claims in the FY 2013 MedPAR with a discharge date after April 1, 2013. Therefore, to properly account for how sequestration is reflected in the FY 2013 MedPAR data in the calculation of these payment adjustment factors, we restored the 2-percent sequestration reduction to the DRG payment field on the MedPAR claim (as described previously). This correction ensures that we identify and remove all IME MA claims when the IME payment field is equal to the DRG payment field and correctly determine the base-operating DRG payment amount used in the calculation of the readmission and Hospital VBP payment adjustment factors for FY 2015.

At the time of the issuance of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, applicable hospitals had not yet had the opportunity to review and correct data from the FY 2015 applicable period before they were made public under our policy regarding the reporting of hospital-specific information. Therefore, in Table 15A listed in the Addendum of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we provided proxy FY 2015 readmission payment adjustment factors, and stated that we expected to publish the final FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors in Table 15B on the CMS IPPS Web site by October 2014, and would use those final factors for determining payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014 (79 FR 50048). Similarly, in the final rule, we provided updated proxy value-based incentive payment adjustment factors for FY 2015 in Table 16A listed in the Addendum of that final rule to reflect changes based on the March 2014 update to the FY 2013 MedPAR file. These updated proxy value-based incentive payment adjustment factors for FY 2015 were based on historic FY 2014 Program TPSs because hospitals had not been given the opportunity to review and correct their actual TPSs for the FY 2015 Hospital VBP Program at the time we issued that final rule. We stated that after hospitals had been given an opportunity to review and correct their actual TPSs for FY 2015, we would publish Table 16B to display the actual value-based incentive payment adjustment factors, and that we expected Table 16B to be posted on the CMS Web site in October 2014 (79 FR 50049).

The review and corrections period for the data from the FY 2015 applicable period under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program resulted in no changes to the proxy adjustment factors shown in Table 15A. However, the calculation of the FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors was affected by the inadvertent errors resulting from our use of claims in the FY 2013 MedPAR with a discharge date after April 1, 2013 without properly accounting for how sequestration was reflected in those data. Because we use claims data from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013 to calculate the FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors, only a portion of that data (that is, the claims between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013) was impacted by the errors described previously. As a result of the correction of those errors, the FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors have changed for 60 hospitals. The final FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors, which were calculated after correcting the errors discussed previously, are posted in Table 15B on the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html . (Click on the link on the left side of the screen titled, ”FY 2015 IPPS Final Rule Home Page” or ”Acute Inpatient—Files for Download”.) As noted previously, the final FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors in Table 15B will be used for determining payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014. After accounting for these corrections in determination of the FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors, we are revising the estimated savings under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to $428 million, from $424 million in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50425).

We note that we are not correcting the proxy FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors for FY 2015 shown in Table 15A or the updated proxy value-based incentive payment adjustment factors for FY 2015 shown in Table 16A. However, consistent with the methodology for calculating the operating budget neutrality factors for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50366), we used corrected proxy payment adjustment factors in the recalculation of the IPPS rates for this correcting document. These factors can be found in the IPPS Impact File that corresponds to this correcting document which is available on the CMS Web site. (We note that the description of the methodology for calculating the operating budget neutrality factors contained errors that are summarized later in the section and corrected in section IV.C.1. of this correcting document). The proxy factors in Table 15A were provided for informational purposes and they are not used for payment adjustment purposes and the final FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors in Table 15B will be used for determining payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014 (79 FR 50048). Similarly, the proxy factors in Table 16A were provided for informational purposes, according to the methodology finalized in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH final rule (77 FR 53576), and they are not used for payment adjustment purposes. As stated in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we intend to post the actual Hospital VBP Program payment adjustment factors, as Table 16B, in October of 2014, after hospitals have had an opportunity to review and correct their TPSs.

On page 50366, we made an error in the description of our budget neutrality methodology with respect to the readmissions payment adjustment factors that we used for the purpose of modeling aggregate payments when determining all budget neutrality factors. As we discussed in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50048), for that final rule we determined proxy FY 2015 readmission payment adjustment factors (shown in Table 15A), which were calculated based on data from the FY 2015 applicable period of July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013.

In addition, we made a typographical error in the March 2013 and 2014 operating national average case weighted cost-to charge ratios (CCRs) set forth in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Also, we made a technical error in the calculation of the capital CCR adjustment factor that is applied to determine the capital CCRs used in our ratesetting process. This inadvertent technical error caused a miscalculation of the capital CCRs used in the determination of the operating and capital budget neutrality factors and the calculation of the outlier threshold for the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Therefore, we are correcting the capital CCR adjustment factor and the capital CCRs used in our determination of the operating and capital budget neutrality factors as well as our calculation of the outlier threshold.

Lastly, we made technical and typographical errors in the table heading for Table 2-2 which is listed in the Addendum of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule as one of the tables that are only available through the Internet on the CMS Web site (page 50403).

The following corrections are being made to the tables listed on pages 50402 and 50403 of the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule that are only available through the Internet on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html.

In Table 2-2.—Acute Care Hospitals Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2012; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2015; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2013 (2009 Wage Data), 2014 (2010 Wage Data), and 2015 (2011 Wage Data; Based on FY 2015 CBSA Delineations); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages, we are correcting the table heading as noted in section II.C. of this correcting document. We are also correcting the entries in column “FY 2015 Wage Index” as a result of the technical errors discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document.

We are correcting the following tables in the entirety as a result of the technical errors discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document:

• Table 4A-1.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Urban Areas by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2014.

• Table 4A-2.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Urban Areas by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2015.

• Table 4B-1.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Rural Areas by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2014.

• Table 4B-2.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Rural Areas by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on FY 2015 CBSA Delineations.

• Table 4C-1.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals That Are Reclassified by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2014.

• Table 4C-2.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals That Are Reclassified by CBSA and by State—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2015.

• Table 4D-1.—States Designated as Frontier, with Acute Care Hospitals Receiving at a Minimum the Frontier State Floor Wage Index; Urban Areas with Acute Care Hospitals Receiving the Statewide Rural Floor or Imputed Floor Wage Index—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2014.

• Table 4D-2.—States Designated as Frontier, with Acute Care Hospitals Receiving at a Minimum the Frontier State Floor Wage Index; Urban Areas with Acute Care Hospitals Receiving the Statewide Rural Floor or Imputed Floor Wage Index—FY 2015; Based on CBSA Delineations Used in FY 2015.

• Table 4J.—Out-Migration Adjustment for Acute Care Hospitals—FY 2015

• Table 10.—New Technology Add-On Payment Thresholds 1,2 for Applications for FY 2016.

Table 5.—List of Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs), Relative Weighting Factors, and Geometric and Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay—FY 2015. We are correcting this table by correcting typographical and technical errors in the columns titled “Geometric Mean LOS” and “Arithmetic Mean LOS”.

Table 8B.—FY 2015 Statewide Average Capital Cost-to-Charge Ratios (CCRs) for Acute Care Hospitals. We are correcting typographical and technical errors in this table.

Table 18.—FY 2015 Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payment Factor 3 and Supplemental Medicare DSH File—FY 2015 Uncompensated Care Payment Factors. For the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we published a list of hospitals that we identified to be subsection (d) hospitals and subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payment adjustments and uncompensated care payments for FY 2015. As stated in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50022), we allowed the public an additional period after the issuance of the final rule to review and submit comments on the accuracy of the list of mergers that we identified in the final rule. Based on the comments received during this additional period, we are updating Table 18 and the Supplemental Medicare DSH File to reflect the merger information received in response to the final rule and are also making one other correction to Table 18 and the Supplemental Medicare DSH File. We have discovered that in calculating Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, we inadvertently excluded the Medicaid days from the most recently available 2012 or 2011 cost report for a certain provider that was projected to receive Medicare DSH in FY 2015. This provider submitted its Medicare hospital cost reports to its Medicare contractor prior to the March 2014 update of HCRIS but due to technical errors the Medicare hospital cost reports were not included in the March 2014 update of HCRIS. As a result, this provider had no Medicaid days included in the calculation of Factor 3. In order to correct this error, we have revised Factor 3 for all hospitals to incorporate the changes to the data for this provider whose Medicare hospital cost report data were inadvertently excluded from the March 2014 update of HCRIS.

On page 50428, in our discussion of the effects of the new technology add-on payment policy, we made an error in the costs of the add-on payments for Voraxaze® for FY 2015.

On pages 50405, 50407, and 50409 through 50429; we made errors in the operating impacts as described in section II.C. of this correcting document.

On pages 50435 through 50437, we made errors in the capital impacts as described in section II.C. of this correcting document.

On page 50446, we made an error in the estimated expenditures under the IPPS as a result of the errors described in section II.C. of this correcting document.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble, regulation text, addendum, payment rates, tables, and appendices included or referenced in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2014-18545 of August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49853), make the following corrections:

1. On page 49865, third column, third bulleted paragraph, line 12, the figure “$369” is corrected to read “$373”.

2. On page 49918, second column, first partial paragraph:

a. Lines 7 through 12, the sentences “The cost of Voraxaze® is $22,500 per vial. The applicant stated that an average of four vials is used per Medicare beneficiary. Therefore, the average cost per case for Voraxaze® is $90,000 ($22,500 × 4).” are corrected to read “Based on the latest data from the manufacturer, the cost of Voraxaze® is $23,625 per vial. The applicant stated that an average of four vials is used per Medicare beneficiary. Therefore, the average cost per case for Voraxaze® is $94,500 ($23,625 × 4).”

b. Lines 18 through 20, the sentence “As a result, the maximum new technology add-on payment for Voraxaze® is $45,000 per case.” is corrected to read “As a result, based on the latest data from the manufacturer, the maximum new technology add-on payment for Voraxaze® for FY 2015 is $47,250 per case.”

3. On page 49940, third column, last paragraph, fourth line from the bottom, the phrase “the maximum payment” is corrected to read “the maximum add-on payment”.

4. On pages 50246 through 50249, the table titled “Previously Adopted Hospital IQR Program Measures and Measures Newly Finalized in this Final Rule for the FY 2017 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years” is corrected as follows:

a. Adding the following entry (short name VTE-3) immediately preceding the entry VTE-5:

b. Removing the entry for VTE-3 that follows the entry for Stroke-10.

c. Adding the following entry for PN-6 immediately preceding the entry for VTE-4:

5. On 50279, second column, second full paragraph, lines 10 through 13, the hyperlink, “ http://www.Fqualityforum.Forg/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=70374 ” is corrected to read “ http://www.qualityforum.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=70374 .”

6. On page 50284:

a. Second column, first partial paragraph:

(1) Line 7, the phrase “However the six” is corrected to read “However for the six”.

(2) Line 12, the phrase “four quarters data” is corrected to read “four quarters of data”.

b. Third column, third full paragraph, lines 14 and 15, the parenthetical phase “(and not limited to orthopedic surgeries)” is corrected to read “(and are not limited to orthopedic surgeries)”.

7. On page 50298, second column, first partial paragraph, line 6, the phrase “the CAM® Instrument” is corrected to read “the short CAM® instrument”.

8. On page 50302, third column, second full paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “of long-term mechanical ventilation” is corrected to read “with patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation”.

9. On page 50306, lower two-thirds of the page, third column, partial paragraph, lines 18 and 19, the phrase “tobacco performance measure set” is corrected to read “tobacco treatment performance measure set”.

10. On page 50335, first column, first full paragraph:

a. Line 34, the phrase “that because available” is corrected to read “that became available”.

b. Lines 38 and 39, the phrase “not enter into an SIA” is corrected to read “not entered into an SIA”.

1. On page 50350, in the first column, in § 405.1811(c) introductory text, lines 7 and 8, the phrase “for a cost reporting period if—” is corrected to read “for specific items for a cost reporting period if—”.

2. On page 50350, in the third column, in § 405.1835(c), in lines 7 through 9, the phrase “for specific items claimed for a cost reporting period if—” is corrected to read “for specific items for a cost reporting period if—”.

1. On page 50366, first column, first full paragraph the paragraph beginning with the phrase “For the purpose of calculating the FY” and ending with the phrase “to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53399 through 53400).)” is corrected to read as follows:

“For the purpose of calculating the proposed FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors in the proposed rule, we used excess readmission ratios and aggregate payments for excess readmissions based on admissions from the prior fiscal year's applicable period because hospitals have had the opportunity to review and correct these data before the data were made public under the policy we adopted regarding the reporting of hospital-specific readmission rates, consistent with section 1886(q)(6) of the Act. As discussed in section IV.H.11. of this preamble, because the review and corrections period will still be ongoing through August 19, 2014, which extends beyond the issuance of this FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we are calculating proxy FY 2015 readmissions payment adjustment factors using excess readmission ratios and aggregate payments for excess readmissions based on admissions from the finalized applicable period for FY 2015. We will determine the final readmissions payment adjustment factors that will be used for payments in FY 2015 after the completion of the review and correct process. (For additional information on our general policy for the reporting of hospital-specific readmission rates, consistent with section 1886(q)(6) of the Act, we refer readers to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53399 through 53400).)”

2. On page 50367, third column, first full paragraph:

a. Line 3, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

b. Line 8, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

3. On page 50368:

a. First column, first partial paragraph, line 19, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

b. Third column:

(1) First partial paragraph, line 11, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

(2) Last paragraph:

(a) Line 9, the figure “1.001443” is corrected to read “1.001421”.

(b) Line 13, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

(c) Line 15, the figure “1.001443” is corrected to read “1.001421”.

(d) Line 21, the figure “0.998982” is corrected to read “1.000180”.

4. On page 50369, first column, last partial paragraph, line 13, the figure “0.990406” is corrected to read “0.990429”.

5. On page 50370, first column, second full paragraph:

a. Line 3, the figure “0.989507” is corrected to read “0.989525”.

b. Line 5, the figure “0.991291” is corrected to read “0.991293”.

6. On page 50373:

a. First column, last paragraph, line 3, the figure “0.998859” is corrected to read “0.998854”.

b. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 1, the figure “0.998859” is corrected to read “0.998854”.

7. On page 50374, second column, second full paragraph, line 5, the figure “0.99931” is corrected to read “0.999313”.

8. On page 50380:

a. First column:

(1) First paragraph:

(a) Line 4, the figure “0.292377” is corrected to read “0.292376”.

(b) Line 6, the figure “0.28714” is corrected to read “0.287139”.

(2) Second paragraph:

(a) Line 7, the figure “0.024849” is corrected to read “0.024649”.

(b) Line 18, the figure “0.988307” is corrected to read “0.980352”.

c. Third column, second full paragraph, line 9, the figure “$24,758” is corrected to read “$24,626”.

9. On page 50381:

a. First column:

(1) First full paragraph, line 15, the figure “6.27” is corrected to read “6.18”.

(2) Third full paragraph, the table is corrected to read as follows:

b. Third column, third full paragraph:

(1) Line 4, the figure “5.71” is corrected to read “5.68”.

(2) Line 6, the figure “0.61” is corrected to read “0.58”.

(3) Line 10, the figure “5.71” is corrected to read “5.68”.

10. On pages 50382 and 50383, the table titled, “Comparison of FY 2014 Standardized Amounts to the FY 2015 Standardized Amounts” is corrected to read as follows:

11. On page 50383, the table titled, “Comparison of FY 2014 Puerto Rico-Specific Payment Rate to the FY 2015 Puerto Rico-Specific Payment Rate” is corrected to read as follows:

12. On page 50385, lower half of the page, first column, second paragraph, line 15, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

13. On page 50386, second column, last partial paragraph, line 6, the figure “1.2” is corrected to read “1.3”.

14. On page 50388:

a. First column:

(1) Second full paragraph:

(a) Line 9, the figure “6.27” is corrected to read “6.18”.

(b) Line 13, the figure “0.9373” is corrected to read “0.9382”

(2) Third full paragraph:

(a) Line 6, the phrase “0.9373 is a −0.21 percent” is corrected to read “0.9382 is a −0.12 percent”.

(b) Line 11, the mathematical expression “0.9979 (0.9373/0.9393)” is corrected to read “0.9988 (0.9382/0.9393)”.

(c) Line 13, the figure “0.21 percent” is corrected to read “0.12 percent”

b. Second column, second full paragraph:

(1) Line 12, the figure “0.9987” is corrected to read”0.9994”.

(2) Line 17, the figure “0.9877” is corrected to read “0.9884”.

(3) Line 18, the figure “1.0075” is corrected to read “1.0082”.

c. Third column:

(1) Third full paragraph, line 9, the figure “$434.26” is corrected to read “$434.97”.

(2) Fifth full paragraph (second bulleted paragraph), last line, the figure “0.9986” is corrected to read “0.9993”.

(3) Sixth full paragraph (third bulleted paragraph), last line, the figure “0.9373” is corrected to read “0.9382”.

15. On page 50389:

a. Top of page, third column, partial paragraph:

(1) Line 1, the figure “0.14” is corrected to read “0.07”.

(2) Line 4, the figure “0.21”is corrected to read “0.11”.

(3) Line 7, the figure “1.15” is corrected to read “1.32”.

b. Top half of the page, first table titled, “Comparison of Factors and Adjustments: FY 2014 Capital Federal Rate and FY 2015 Capital Federal Rate” the table and table footnotes are corrected to read as follows:

c. Middle of the page, second table titled, “Comparison of Factors and Adjustments: Proposed FY 2015 Capital Federal Rate and Final FY 2015 Capital Federal Rate” is corrected to read as follows:

d. Bottom half of the page, third column, second full paragraph, last line, the figure “$209.10.” is corrected to read “$209.45.”

16. On page 50390, second column, first partial paragraph, last line, the figure “$24,758” is corrected to read “$24,626”.

17. On page 50403, first column, first paragraph (table heading for Table 2-2), the heading, “Table 2-2.—Acute Care Hospitals Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2012; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2015; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2013 (2009 Wage Data), 2014 (2010 Wage Data), and 2015 (2011 Wage Data; Based on FY 2015 CBSA Delineations); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages” is corrected to read “Table 2-2.—Acute Care Hospitals Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2013; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2015; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2013 (2009 Wage Data; Based on FY 2014 CBSA Delineations), 2014 (2010 Wage Data; Based on FY 2014 CBSA Delineations), and 2015 (2011 Wage Data; Based on FY 2015 CBSA Delineations); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages (Based on FY 2014 and FY 2015 CBSA Delineations)”.

18. On page 50404:

a. Top one-sixth of the page, the first table titled “Table 1A.—National Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts, Labor/Nonlabor (69.6 Percent Labor Share/30.4 Percent Nonlabor Share If Wage Index Is Greater Than 1)—FY 2015” is corrected to read as follows:

b. Top third of the page, the second table titled “Table 1B.—National Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts, Labor/Nonlabor (62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share If Wage Index Is Less Than Or Equal To 1)—FY 2015” is corrected to read as follows:

c. Middle of the page, the third table titled “Table 1C.—Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts For Puerto Rico, Labor/Nonlabor (National: 62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share Because Wage Index Is Less Than Or Equal To 1; Puerto Rico: 63.2 Percent Labor Share/36.8 Percent Nonlabor Share If Wage Index Is Greater Than 1 Or 62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share If Wage Index Is Less Than Or Equal To 1—FY 2015” is corrected to read as follows:

d. Lower third of the page, the fourth table titled “Table 1D.—Capital Standard Federal Payment Rate—FY 2015” is corrected to read as follows:

1. On page 50405, first column, first paragraph:

a. Line 10, the figure “$654” is corrected to read “$623”.

b. Line 12, the figure “$132” is corrected to read “$128”.

c. Line 14, the figure “1.6” is corrected to read “1.5”.

2. On page 50407, second column, last partial paragraph, line 3, the figure “5.71” is corrected to read “5.68”.

3. On pages 50409 through 50419, table titled “Table I.—Impact Analysis of Changes to the IPPS For Operating Costs for FY 2015” the table and table footnotes are corrected as follows:

4. On page 50420:

a. First column, last partial paragraph, last line, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

b. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 6, the figure “0.3” is corrected to read “0.2”.

c. Third column:

(1) First full paragraph, line 26, the figure “1.001443” is corrected to read “1.001421”.

(2) Last partial paragraph, line 6, the phrase “2 urban hospital” is corrected to read “2 urban hospitals”.

5. On page 50421, bottom half of the page:

a. First column, first full paragraph:

(1) Line 9, the figure “1.001443” is corrected to read “1.001421”.

(2) Line 11, the figure “0.997543” is corrected to read “0.998761”.

(3) Line 18, the figures “0.998982” and “0.10” are corrected to read “1.000180” and “0.018”, respectively.

b. Second column, second full paragraph:

(1) Line 6, the figure “0.990406” is corrected to read “0.990429”.

(2) Line 13, the figure “1.5” is corrected to read “1.6”.

c. Third column, first full paragraph, line 8, the figure “0.989507” is corrected to read “0.989525”.

6. On page 50422:

a. First column, second partial paragraph:

(1) Line 1, the figure “422” is corrected to read “423”.

(2) Line 3, the figure “2,974” is corrected to read “2,973”.

(3) Line 6, the figure “0.989507” is corrected to read “0.989525”.

b. Second column:

(1) First paragraph, line 23, the phrase, “this final rule for a complere” is corrected to read “this final rule for a complete”.

(2) Second paragraph, line 8, the figure “0.991291” is corrected to read “0.991293”.

(3) Last paragraph, line 7, the figure “1.121” is corrected to read “1.1093”.

(4) Last paragraph, last line, the figure “$1.9” is corrected to read “$1.8”.

7. On page 50423, the table titled “FY 2015 IPPS Estimated Payments Due to Rural Floor and Imputed Floor with National Budget Neutrality” is corrected to read as follows:

8. On page 50424:

a. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 9, the figure “0.998859” is corrected to read “0.998854”.

b. Third column, first full paragraph, line 18, the figure “273” is corrected to read “279”.

9. On page 50425:

a. First column, first partial paragraph, last line, the figure “$424” is corrected to read “$428”.

b. Second column, first full paragraph, line 1, the phrase “Rural West South” is corrected to read “Rural West North”.

c. Third column:

(1) First partial paragraph, line 6, the figure “5.71” is corrected to read “5.68”.

(2) First full paragraph, line 14, the figure “0.7” is corrected to read “0.6”.

10. On pages 50426 and 50427, the table titled “Table II.—Impact Analysis of Changes for FY 2015 Acute Care Hospital Operating Prospective Payment System (Payments Per Discharge)” is corrected to read as follows: