Background

The regulations in 7 CFR 319.28 govern the importation of citrus fruit into the United States. These regulations are intended to prevent the introduction of citrus canker, among other citrus diseases and pests, into the United States via the importation of citrus from affected foreign regions. Citrus canker is a disease that affects citrus and is caused by the infectious bacterium Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri.

On July 29, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 43972-43974, Docket No. APHIS-2013-0085) a proposal  1 to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of two Unshu orange hybrids (Shiranuhi [( C. reticulata ssp. unshiu x (C. x sinensis )) x C. reticulata ] and Setoka [( C. reticulata ssp. unshiu x ( C. x sinensis )) x C. reticulata ] x C. reticulata ]) from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States subject to the existing conditions for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea. We also proposed to add to the regulations an explicit statement that only commercial consignments of Unshu oranges would be eligible for importation into the continental United States.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending September 29, 2014. We received four comments by that date. They were from a producers' association, the National Plant Board, a State government, and an individual. Two of the commenters supported the proposed rule, and the other two expressed concerns that are addressed below.

One commenter, representing a State government, stated that the Unshu hybrids should only be allowed into citrus-producing States after the proposed mitigation measures have been shown to be effective in non-citrus-producing States in preventing the introduction of Elsinoe australis, the fungus that is the causal agent of sweet orange scab.

We do not agree with this comment. Based on the risk assessment we performed in support of the July 2014 proposed rule, we determined that the two Unshu hybrids could safely be imported into the continental United States under the conditions described in the accompanying risk management document (RMD). (Copies of the full risk assessment and the RMD are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .) Moreover, Unshu oranges have been imported safely from the Republic of Korea under those conditions since 2010. The commenter did not present any evidence that those mitigation measures would not be effective when applied to the Unshu hybrids.

Another commenter stated that although the proposed rule would only allow for the importation of the Unshu hybrids into the continental United States, there is no enforcement of regulations that prevent the fruit from subsequently being shipped from the continental United States to Hawaii. According to the commenter, additional imports of oranges of any species or variety into Hawaii would be extremely dangerous for growers and the industry in Hawaii due to the possibility of the introduction of citrus greening. The commenter also suggested that the volume of such imports could lead to pricing instability.

We do not agree with these comments. Proposed § 319.28(c)(4) contains an explicit prohibition on the importation of the Unshu hybrids into Hawaii, as well as into American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The existing regulations in 7 CFR 301.11 prohibit the interstate movement of plants and plant parts that are subject to such import restrictions under part 319. Therefore, once the Unshu hybrids have been imported into the continental United States, their subsequent movement to Hawaii will be prohibited. The commenter did not present any evidence to support his claim that the interstate movement prohibition in § 301.11 is not currently being enforced. The commenter's concerns regarding citrus greening also appear to be misplaced, since the Unshu hybrids that will be allowed importation under this rulemaking are not considered to be pathways for citrus greening. We also do not expect the importation of the two Unshu hybrids from the Republic of Korea to result in price instability in either the continental United States or Hawaii. As noted in the economic analysis accompanying the July 2014 proposed rule, the Korean Unshu orange share of the U.S. market for mandarin varieties is expected to remain negligible. We expect that Korean Unshu orange hybrids primarily will be sold at a premium in ethnic specialty stores and that any product displacement would largely be borne by Japanese Unshu orange imports.

Previously, the regulations in § 319.28(c), indicated that Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea must, in addition to meeting all other applicable requirements, be grown on Cheju Island to be eligible for export to the United States. In this rule, we are changing the spelling to Jeju Island to reflect current usage.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule with the change mentioned in this document.

This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Immediate implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to those persons who are adversely affected by restrictions on the importation of Unshu orange hybrids that we no longer find warranted. Making this rule effective immediately will allow interested producers and others in the marketing chain to benefit during this year's shipping season. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This analysis provides the basis for certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule amends the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of two Unshu orange hybrids from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States subject to the existing conditions for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea. The rule also codifies an existing requirement by explicitly limiting Unshu orange shipments from the Republic of Korea to commercial consignments.

Easy-peel, sweet, juicy, seedless mandarin varieties, including Unshu oranges, are gaining popularity in the United States. The United States does not commercially produce Unshu oranges, but does produce various similar mandarin varieties. U.S. production of these mandarin varieties doubled in 6 years, from 250,000 metric tons (MT) in 2007, to almost 500,000 MT in 2012. Production values of mandarin varieties more than doubled, from $141 million in 2007 to $336 million in 2012. In general, harvesting and marketing activities are most active between January 1 and March 31 in California, and between November 15 and March 15 in Florida. U.S. imports of mandarin varieties averaged about 142,000 MT per year, valued at $178 million, between 2010 and 2012, with Chile, Spain, Peru, and Morocco the main sources. Net imports (imports minus exports) averaged about 100,000 MT per year.

The Republic of Korea and Japan are the principal exporters of Unshu oranges to the United States. In the Republic of Korea, almost all Unshu oranges are produced on the southern island of Jeju. 2 Over 99 percent of Unshu oranges are consumed domestically, and only about 0.6 percent of the Republic of Korea's Unshu oranges, totaling 3,611 MT and valued at $4.8 million, were exported in 2012. The United Kingdom was the main destination of Korean Unshu oranges in 2012; the United States was the fourth largest importer of Korean Unshu oranges that year, totaling 743 MT. The oranges were typically sold at a premium in ethnic specialty stores.

The pest risk analysis for this rule assumes the upper range of annual Unshu orange imports from the Republic of Korea to the United States to be about 2,000 MT. Prior to administrative suspension of Unshu orange imports from the Republic of Korea to the United States in 2003, imports of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea to the United States averaged about 650 MT annually between 1995 and 2002. Following the removal of the import suspension in 2010, imports of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea totaled 412 MT in 2011 (valued at $0.5 million) and 743 MT in 2012 (valued at $0.9 million). Given these import levels and the Republic of Korea's limited supply capacity and relatively stable domestic demand, projected exports of 2,000 MT may be high. Even if imports from the Republic of Korea were to reach 2,000 MT, the Korean Unshu orange share of the U.S. market for mandarin varieties is expected to remain negligible (about 1.4 percent of U.S. imports and 0.3 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of all mandarin varieties, based on U.S. production and trade data for the years 2010 through 2012). In addition, given the fact that fresh Unshu orange imports by the United States are predominantly supplied by Japan and the Republic of Korea, we expect any product displacement would be largely borne by Japanese Unshu orange imports.

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

This final rule allows two Unshu orange hybrids to be imported into the continental United States from the Republic of Korea. State and local laws and regulations regarding the Unshu hybrids imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh Unshu hybrids are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0424, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

DOE has reorganized its Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) by dividing the office into two separate organizations: The Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (AU) and the Office of Enterprise Assessments (EA). HSS's responsibilities were divided between the organizations as described below.

AU's mission is to provide corporate leadership and strategic approaches for protecting DOE's workers, the public, the environment and national security assets. This objective is accomplished through developing corporate policies and standards and providing guidance on their implementation; sharing operating experience, lessons learned, and best practices; and providing assistance and supporting services to line management with the goal of mission success as DOE's environment, health, safety and security advocate. AU is led by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security who reports directly to the Under Secretary for Management and Performance.

EA is responsible for performing independent assessments in the areas of nuclear safety, worker safety and health, environment, cyber and physical security, and other critical functions; implementing Congressionally-mandated investigations in the areas of worker safety and health, nuclear safety, and security and as appropriate, assessing civil penalties or pursuing other enforcement measures for any resulting violations; incorporating the lessons learned from assessments and enforcement activities into DOE safety and security training courses through its management of the National Training Center; and providing an open and effective means of communicating and creating collaborative relationships within and outside the Department through its stakeholder outreach program. EA is led by a Director who reports directly to the Secretary of Energy.

Certain of the functions that were transferred to AU are subject to regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As a result of the transfer, title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains references to DOE program offices and positions that are no longer extant. This final rule amends title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect new organizational structures and titles, and update addresses that are no longer correct. None of the regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking alter substantive rights or obligations under current law.

This final rule has been approved by the Secretary of Energy.

This regulatory action has been determined not to be “a significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies to ensure that the potential impacts of its draft rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), and has made them available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel .

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking reflecting transfers of functions and address changes relate solely to internal agency organization, management or personnel, and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment. Consequently, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Specifically, this rule amends existing regulations without changing the environmental effect of the regulations being amended, and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. DOE has determined that this regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking reflecting transfers of functions and address changes relate solely to internal agency organization, management or personnel, and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends chapters II and III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Beginning July 21, 2011, the transfer date established by section 311 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5411, the powers, duties and functions of the former OTS were divided among the FDIC as to State savings associations, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as to Federal savings associations, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as to savings and loan holding companies. 1 Section 316(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5414(b), provides the manner of treatment for all orders, resolutions, determinations, regulations, and advisory materials that had been issued, made, prescribed, or allowed to become effective by the OTS. The section provides that if such regulatory issuances were in effect on the day before the transfer date, they continue in effect and are enforceable by or against the appropriate successor agency until they are modified, terminated, set aside, or superseded in accordance with applicable law by such successor agency, by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

The Dodd-Frank Act directed the FDIC and OCC to consult with one another and to publish a list of continued OTS regulations to be enforced by each respective agency that would continue to remain in effect until the appropriate successor agency modified or removed the regulations in accordance with the applicable laws. The list was published by the FDIC and OCC as a Joint Notice in the Federal Register on July 6, 2011, and shortly thereafter, the FDIC published its transferred OTS regulations as new FDIC regulations in 12 CFR parts 390 and 391. When it republished the transferred OTS regulations as new FDIC regulations, the FDIC specifically noted that its staff would evaluate the transferred OTS rules and might later recommend incorporating the transferred OTS regulations into other FDIC rules, amending them, or rescinding them, as appropriate.

Further, section 312(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of “appropriate Federal banking agency” contained in section 3(q) of the FDI Act, to add State savings associations to the list of entities for which the FDIC is designated the “appropriate Federal banking agency.” As a result, when the FDIC acts as the designated “appropriate Federal banking agency” (or under similar terminology) for State savings associations, as it does today, it has the authority to issue, modify, and rescind regulations involving such associations as well as for State nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks. 2

On April 21, 2014, the FDIC published an NPR regarding the removal of certain subparts from 12 CFR part 390 in an effort to streamline regulations for all FDIC-supervised institutions and eliminate duplicative regulations. The NPR also proposed minor technical changes to 12 CFR part 308 to conform the existing FDIC regulations to accommodate State savings associations, add jurisdiction for new statutes, and reflect internal organization changes. The specific changes are set forth below in Section IV.

Part 390, subpart C governs the rules and procedures applicable to administrative enforcement actions for State savings associations and their institution-affiliated parties (IAPs). 3 The former OTS rule was transferred to the FDIC with only nominal changes. As discussed in the Proposed Rule, the FDIC carefully reviewed part 390, subpart C, and compared it with part 308, subparts A and B, an FDIC regulation that existed before the transfer of part 390, subpart C, and that continues to remain in effect today. Like the transferred rule, part 308, subparts A and B govern the rules and procedures applicable to administrative enforcement proceedings for State nonmember banks and their IAPs. 4 Although the two rules were substantively the same, the FDIC noted some distinctions and technical differences between the transferred OTS rule and part 308. 5

Part 390, subpart E governs the rules of practice before the FDIC and requirements for legal counsel. 6 The FDIC carefully reviewed the transferred rule, part 390, subpart E, and compared it with part 308, subpart C, an FDIC regulation that existed before the transfer of part 390, subpart E and that continues to remain in effect today. Like the transferred rule, part 308, subpart C governs the suspension and debarment rules for legal counsel. Although the two rules were substantively the same, the FDIC noted some distinctions and technical differences between the transferred OTS rule and part 308.

Part 390, subpart D sets the rules for investigations and formal examination proceedings. The FDIC carefully reviewed the transferred rule, part 390, subpart D, and compared it with part 308, subpart K, an FDIC regulation that existed before the transfer of part 390, subpart D and that continues to remain in effect today. Like the transferred rule, part 308, subpart K sets the rules for investigative proceedings. Although the two rules were substantively the same, the FDIC noted some distinctions and technical differences between the transferred OTS rule and part 308. The Final Rule conforms the rules and procedures for State savings associations and provides investigative authority for violations of certain statutes now enforced by the FDIC.

Part 390, subpart B sets the rules for removals, suspensions, and prohibitions where a crime is charged. The FDIC carefully reviewed the transferred rule, part 390, subpart B, and compared it with part 308, subpart N, an FDIC regulation that existed before the transfer of part 390, subpart B and that continues to remain in effect today. Like the transferred rule, part 308, subpart N sets the rules for proceedings relating to suspension, removal, and prohibition where a felony is charged. Although the two rules were substantively the same, the FDIC noted some distinctions and technical differences between the transferred OTS rule and part 308. The Final Rule conforms the rules and procedures for State savings associations.

The FDIC issued the NPR with a 60-day comment period that closed on June 20, 2014. The FDIC received no comments on its Proposed Rule, and consequently the Final Rule is adopted as proposed without any changes.

As discussed in the NPR, part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E are substantively similar to part 308, subparts A, B, C, K, and N. Conforming the rules and procedures for all FDIC-supervised institutions will streamline the FDIC's rules and eliminate unnecessary regulations. To that effect, the Final Rule removes and rescinds 12 CFR part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E in their entirety. The Final Rule also makes minor technical changes to part 308, subparts A, B, C, K, and N to conform the FDIC's rules and accommodate State savings associations, as described below.

The Final Rule addresses the key difference between part 308, subparts A and B, and part 390, subpart C, which relates to the scope of discovery in administrative enforcement proceedings. Specifically, the FDIC's rules at part 308, subparts A and B restrict discovery to document discovery only. State savings associations, for which the FDIC is the primary federal regulator (PFR), will now follow the same rules as other FDIC-supervised institutions. Additionally, the changes to part 308, subparts A and B include new jurisdictional language to ensure that the FDIC can take the necessary enforcement actions such as the assessment of civil money penalties against State savings associations.

The Final Rule adds language to the suspension and debarment section to require attorneys who appear before the FDIC as legal counsel to disclose any professional disciplinary actions to the Board.

The Final Rule adds language to provide the FDIC with the necessary investigative powers under certain statutes that were previously enforced by the OTS against State savings associations such as section 5(d)(1)(B) of Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. 1464(c) (“HOLA”). There are also conforming amendments to make subpart K procedures applicable to all enforcement investigations conducted by FDIC. The Final Rule also updates the language of the subpart to reflect internal organizational changes to the FDIC, as well as clarifying the behavioral standards for those participating in an official investigation. Finally, the Final Rule clarifies who may be present during sworn testimony and how a witness requests transcripts of that testimony.

The Final Rule adds language to include State savings associations, provides guidance on immediate compliance with the suspension or prohibition proceeding, and clarifies that the IAP has the burden of proof to show that his or her continued participation in the industry does not pose a threat to, or public confidence in insured institutions.

The Final Rule rescinds and removes from FDIC regulations part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E. Further, with regard to part 308, the Final Rule makes minor amendments to subparts A, B, C, K, and N. The practical effect of these technical amendments to rules and procedures will not involve any new—or revisions to current—collections of information under the PRA.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., generally requires an agency to consider whether a final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $550 million). 7 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

As discussed previously, part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E were transferred from OTS's rules and procedures governing administrative enforcement proceedings and all State savings associations were required to comply with them. Because these subparts are redundant of existing part 308 of the FDIC's rules, the Final Rule rescinds and removes part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E. As a result, all FDIC-supervised institutions—including State savings associations—must comply with Part 308 if they are subject to administrative enforcement proceedings. Consequently, today's Final Rule will have no significant economic impact on any State savings association.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. 4809, requires each Federal banking agency to use plain language in all of its proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. In the NPR, the FDIC invited comments on whether the Proposed Rule was clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the FDIC might make it easier to understand. Although the FDIC did not receive any comments, the FDIC sought to present the Final Rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

Under section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA), the FDIC is required to review all of its regulations, at least once every 10 years, in order to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured institutions. 8 The FDIC's EGRPRA review is ongoing and is expected to be completed by 2016. The NPR solicited comments on whether the proposed rescission of part 390, subparts B, C, D, and E and technical amendments to part 308, subparts A, B, C, K and N would impose any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements on insured depository institutions. No comments on this issue were received. Upon review, the FDIC does not believe that part 308, as amended by the Final Rule, imposes any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements on any insured depository institutions.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends parts 308 and 390 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

The Dodd-Frank Act, 1 signed into law on July 21, 2010, provided for a substantial reorganization of the regulation of State and Federal savings associations and their holding companies. Beginning July 21, 2011, the transfer date established by section 311 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 2 the powers, duties, and functions formerly performed by the OTS were divided among the FDIC as to State savings associations, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as to Federal savings associations, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) as to savings and loan holding companies. Section 316(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act  3 provides the manner of treatment for all orders, resolutions, determinations, regulations, and other advisory materials that were issued, made, prescribed, or allowed to become effective by the OTS. The section provides that if such advisory materials were in effect on the day before the transfer date, they continue in effect and are enforceable by or against the appropriate successor agency until they are modified, terminated, set aside, or superseded in accordance with applicable law by such successor agency, by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

Section 316(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act  4 further directed the FDIC and the OCC to consult with one another and to publish a list of the continued OTS regulations that would be enforced by the FDIC and the OCC respectively. On June 14, 2011, the FDIC's Board of Directors approved a “List of OTS Regulations to be Enforced by the OCC and the FDIC Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” This list was published by the FDIC and the OCC as a Joint Notice in the Federal Register on July 6, 2011. 5

Although section 312(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Dodd-Frank Act  6 granted the OCC rulemaking authority relating to both State and Federal savings associations, nothing in the Dodd-Frank Act affected the FDIC's existing authority to issue regulations under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the FDI Act)  7 and other laws as the “appropriate Federal banking agency.” Section 312(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 3(q) of the FDI Act  8 and designated the FDIC as the “appropriate Federal banking agency” for State savings associations. As a result, when the FDIC acts as the designated “appropriate Federal banking agency” for State savings associations, as it does here, the FDIC is authorized to issue, modify and rescind regulations involving such associations.

As noted, on June 14, 2011, the FDIC's Board of Directors reissued and redesignated certain regulations promulgated by the former OTS. These transferred OTS regulations were published as FDIC interim rules in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011. 9 When it republished the transferred OTS regulations as new FDIC regulations, the FDIC specifically noted that its staff would evaluate the transferred OTS rules and might later recommend incorporating the transferred OTS regulations into other FDIC rules, amending them, or rescinding them, as appropriate.

One of the regulations transferred to the FDIC set forth procedures to be followed by conservators and receivers for Federal and State savings associations upon taking possession of said entities and for providing notice of appointment. This OTS regulation, formerly found at 12 CFR part 558, was transferred to the FDIC with only nominal changes and is now subpart N in 12 CFR part 390.

The FDIC's authority to act as conservator or receiver and its powers and duties in those roles are set forth in the FDI Act and in regulations found in 12 CFR part 360. The Board has delegated authority to staff to establish policies and procedures for carrying out receivership operations. The FDI Act and the policies and procedures implemented and followed by FDIC staff subsume the responsibilities set forth in subpart N. 10

Section 316(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the former OTS's regulations will continue in effect until they are modified, terminated, set aside, or superseded in accordance with applicable law. 11 After careful review of subpart N, the FDIC has determined that it should be rescinded and removed because it is unnecessary, or because it prescribes actions that are duplicative of actions taken by the OCC or state chartering authority. The provisions of the FDI Act and the FDIC's existing policies and procedures sufficiently address the provision of notice of appointment and the authority to take possession of, and exercise control over, the assets of a failed institution, including insured Federal and State savings associations. The FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind and remove subpart N in the Federal Register and received no comments on its proposal. 12

The FDIC interim rule found at 12 CFR 390.240 (section 390.240) is the redesignation of the OTS regulation outlining procedures to be followed by conservators and receivers for Federal and State savings associations for taking possession of said entities upon appointment. The FDIC is rescinding and removing section 390.240 because it is unnecessary. Paragraph (a) requires the conservator or receiver to take possession of the failed institution's principal office in accordance with the terms of the appointment. The FDIC's procedure already provides that it takes coordinated simultaneous possession of all locations from which a failed institution operates. Moreover, the FDIC's powers and duties as conservator or receiver are set forth in the FDI Act, not pursuant to the “terms of the . . . appointment.”

Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5), respectively, provide that the conservator or receiver shall immediately take possession of the institution's books, records, and assets, and shall succeed to rights, titles, powers and privileges of the savings association and its stockholders, members, account holders, depositors, officers, and directors. These provisions are redundant of the FDI Act, which provides that the FDIC succeeds to “all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the insured depository institution, and of any stockholder, member, accountholder, depositor, officer, or director of such institution with respect to the institution and the assets of the institution” when acting as conservator or receiver. 13

Paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4), respectively, instruct the conservator or receiver to “notify in writing, served personally or by registered mail or telegraph” all parties known to be holding or in possession of assets of the failed institution that the conservator or receiver has succeeded to all rights, powers and privileges of the failed institution; file a statement with the Executive Secretary that the conservator or receiver took possession of the failed institution; and post a notice on the door of the principal and other offices of the failed institution in the form, if any, prescribed by the OCC or state bank supervisor. For three reasons, these provisions are unnecessary given existing FDIC policies and procedures. First, the FDIC's practice is to demand the return of assets of the failed institution in whatever manner and form that is appropriate under the circumstances. Second, the Executive Secretary is provided with a copy of all closing documents by FDIC staff. Third, the OCC or state bank supervisor itself posts its order closing the institution on the door of the principal office.

The FDIC interim rule found at 12 CFR 390.241 (section 390.241) is the redesignation of the OTS regulation outlining procedures for giving notice of the appointment of a conservator or receiver for a Federal or State savings association. The FDIC is rescinding and removing section 390.241 because it is unnecessary. Specifically, paragraph (a) requires the FDIC to designate the persons or entities who are to: (1) Give notice of the appointment “to any officer or employee who is present in and appears to be in charge at the principal office of the savings association;”  14 (2) serve a copy of the order of appointment by (i) “leaving a certified copy of the order of appointment at the principal office of the savings association,”  15 or (ii) “handing a certified copy of the order of appointment to the previous conservator . . . or the officer or employee of the savings association . . . who is present in and appears to be in charge at the principal office of the savings association;”  16 and (3) file with the Executive Secretary of the FDIC a statement that includes the date and time that notice of the appointment was given and service of the order of appointment was made.”  17 It is not necessary to include these provisions among the FDIC's regulations because the OCC or state chartering authority is responsible for providing or serving notice of the appointment of the FDIC as conservator or receiver on a Federal or State savings association. Further, the FDIC's Executive Secretary maintains records of the appointment of the FDIC as conservator or receiver. Paragraph (b), which instructs the FDIC to cause a notice of the appointment of the conservator or receiver to be published in the Federal Register , is unnecessary because the FDIC causes such a publication regarding any institution for which it is appointed as conservator or receiver in accordance with its policy and procedures.

For the reasons stated above, the FDIC is rescinding and removing subpart N. Doing so will serve to streamline the FDIC's rules, prevent confusion and eliminate unnecessary regulations.

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) (PRA), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Rescinding and removing subpart N will not revise any existing information collections pursuant to the PRA. Consequently, the FDIC has not submitted any information collection request to the OMB for review.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (RFA), requires that each federal agency either (1) certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or (2) prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment. Rescinding and removing subpart N will leave the FDI Act as the sole source of the FDIC's authority to act as conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution and does not impose any obligations or restrictions on banking organizations, including small banking organizations. On this basis, the FDIC certifies that the removal of subpart N would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms as used in the RFA.

No notice of a final rule is being provided to Congress regarding this amendment under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., (SBREFA). SBREFA provides generally for agencies to report rules to Congress and for major rules not to take effect for a certain period after the notice has been received. However, section 251 of SBREFA provides that rules of agency practice and procedure that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties are not subject to the reporting requirement and may be made effective in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and any other applicable law. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of SBREFA.

Under section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”), the FDIC is required to review all of its regulations, at least once every 10 years, in order to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured institutions. The FDIC completed the last comprehensive review of its regulations under EGRPRA in 2006 and has commenced the next decennial review. The action taken on this rule will be included as part of the EGRPRA review that is currently under way.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809, requires each Federal banking agency to use plain language in all of its proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. As a federal banking agency subject to the provisions of this section, the FDIC has sought to present the final rule to rescind and remove subpart N in a simple and straightforward manner. The FDIC's proposal to rescind and remove subpart N invited comments on whether the proposal was clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the FDIC might make the proposal easier to understand. No comments were received.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 5412, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR part 390 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21158). Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-18, dated July 16, 2013 (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-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

In addition to requiring the replacement of any HSTA having the affected part number, this AD requires revising both the airplane flight manual and airplane maintenance or inspection program.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0231-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 21158, April 15, 2014) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Mher Krikorian stated that the current revision of the service information is not referenced in the NPRM (79 FR 21158, April 15, 2014) and requested that the NPRM be revised to refer to Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014. Mr. Krikorian suggested that referring to the current revision of the service information would help to avoid requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance.

We agree with the commenter's request and have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to refer to Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014. The revised service information includes only minor changes and does not include any substantive changes or new actions. We also added a new paragraph (k) to this AD to provide credit for actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, dated September 10, 2012; 604-27-032, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2013; 605-27-002, dated September 10, 2012; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 01, April 29, 2013; as applicable. We redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

We revised paragraph (h) of this AD to require operators to revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating procedures for an Operational Test (BITE) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Controls System (HSTCS), in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. Bombardier Task 27-41-00-101, Operational Test (BITE) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Controls System (HSTCS), is referenced as guidance material in new Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21158, April 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21158, April 15, 2014).

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

We reviewed Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 604/37, dated May 21, 2013, to the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1; and Bombardier TR 605/18, dated May 21, 2013, to the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1. This service information describes procedures for the stabilizer trim system check. We also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacing HSTAs. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0231.

We estimate that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $223,125, or $1,785 per product.

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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0231 ; 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:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0094, dated April 15, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and -303 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71L002-13, dated April 8, 2013. The service information describes procedures to perform a one-time ultrasonic inspection for fractures of all aft mount-pylon bolts of each engine. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

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-2015-0079; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-091-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 0 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition action specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Embraer Model EMB -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52588).

The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2014-01-01, dated January 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer Model EMB -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0622-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 52588, September 4, 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 52588, September 4, 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 52588, September 4, 2014).

We reviewed EMBRAER EMB145 Temporary Revision 15-3, dated August 26, 2013, to the Airworthiness Limitation Requirements of the EMBRAER EMB145 Maintenance Review Board Report MRB 145/1150; and EMBRAER EMB145 Temporary Revision 15-4, dated August 26, 2013, to the Airworthiness Limitation Requirements of the EMBRAER EMB145 Maintenance Review Board Report MRB-145/1150. The service information describes airworthiness limitations related to inspections of certain fuselage or pylon components. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0622.

We estimate that this AD affects 688 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $58,480, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0622; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19299).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-19, dated July 18, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0188-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 19299, April 8, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Horizon Air requested that the NPRM (79 FR 19299, April 8, 2014) require only the section of the Accomplishment Instructions that corrects the unsafe condition. Horizon Air stated that the job set-up and close-out sections specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-121, dated May 27, 2013, do not directly correct the unsafe condition. Horizon Air also stated that incorporating the job set-up and close-out sections as a requirement of the NPRM restricts the operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with the incorporation of the service information. Horizon Air stated that it would like the NPRM to mandate section 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions, which addresses the unsafe condition.

We agree with the commenter's request and rationale. We have changed paragraphs (g), (g)(2), and (h) of this AD to specify that the actions be done in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-121, dated May 27, 2013.

Horizon Air requested that the sentence in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 19299, April 8, 2014), stating, “For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD,” be removed. Horizon Air stated the sentence should not be included in the NPRM, or at the very least it should be modified because it will place an unnecessary regulatory burden on operators with airplanes built in Canada.

Horizon Air stated that Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) is the aviation authority for the Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. Horizon Air also stated that the NPRM restates the requirement of the Canadian AD. Horizon Air stated that any repairs created by Bombardier, Inc. would have to be in compliance with the Canadian AD and the repair would specifically refer to the Canadian AD. Horizon Air stated that the bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States accepts documents approved by TCCA as meeting the requirements for FAA approval. Horizon Air asked whether the FAA AD number is really necessary when the repair is approved by TCAA and specifically refers to the Canadian AD. Horizon Air also stated that the repair meets the approval requirements from TCAA.

Horizon Air stated that the language specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM would force an operator who incorporated a repair method prior to the effective date of the AD to go back to the manufacturer and request a revision to the repair method to add the FAA AD number, even if the repair method referenced the Canadian AD.

Horizon Air stated that it has discussed this statement with Bombardier Aerospace, and the Q400 Engineering Department Management stated it is under the TCCA “umbrella” and it can only make reference to a Canadian AD on its repair drawings. Horizon Air stated that if this requirement is retained in the NPRM it would require an operator to somehow have a repair drawing revised to include the FAA AD number. Horizon Air also stated that this statement in the NPRM should allow the Canadian AD number to be equivalent to the FAA AD number.

Horizon Airlines stated that an operator could pursue an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), but that would add additional time and cost to comply with the NPRM. Horizon Airlines also stated that the additional time required for an AMOC will most likely delay the airplane's return to service. Horizon Airlines stated that if the AMOC is needed on a weekend or on a Federal holiday, the return to service would take even longer.

We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 19299, April 8, 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 “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

Comments were provided to another NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (79 FR 19299, April 8, 2014)) about these proposed changes. One commenter (UPS) to that NPRM 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 actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

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

This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously 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 AD 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 pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DAO may 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 DAO and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on the comment, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, 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 an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

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

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19299, April 8, 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 19299, April 8, 2014).

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

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-121, dated May 27, 2013. This service information describes doing a detailed inspection of the apex joints of the stabilizer brace lock link in the MLG for clearance; rectifying and repairing the clearance gap, if necessary; and lubricating the apex joints of the stabilizer brace lock link in the MLG. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0188.

We estimate that this AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $19,125, or $255 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0188; 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 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009). AD 2009-06-06 applied to all Airbus Model A310 and Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17451).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0075, dated March 20, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009), and the FAA's response to the comment.

FedEx asked that Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24, 2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012, be included with the service information referenced for accomplishing the actions specified in the NPRM (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009). FedEx stated that this variation provides additional trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) part numbers and is approved by EASA.

We agree with the commenter's request. The referenced variation added some dash numbers that were not previously listed in the Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), but all airplanes affected by the NPRM (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009) have this basic part number. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to refer to Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24, 2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We reviewed the relevant data, 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 (79 FR 17451, March 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17451, March 28, 2014).

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

Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2012; and A300-600 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012. The service information describes procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0173.

We estimate that this AD affects 156 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The ALS revision required by AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009), and retained in this AD takes about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2009-06-06 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,260, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173 ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2014 (79 FR 47387).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0270R1, dated November 27, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include an elasticity of laminate checker inspection of the rudder side panel to detect external and internal disbonding, and a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding, and repair if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0525-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 47387, August 13, 2014) and the FAA's response.

Lufthansa Technik (Lufthansa) asked that we correct certain document numbers for the service information identified in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 47387, August 13, 2014). Lufthansa stated that paragraph (h) of the NPRM incorrectly refers to Airbus Service Bulletins A300-55-3038 and A310-55-4034, instead of Airbus Service Bulletins A330-55-3038 and A340-55-4034, both dated November 7, 2007.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. We have corrected the document numbers for the service information identified in paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly.

We revised the compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD for the part numbers and serial numbers that cannot be identified from “before further flight” to “within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.” We have also revised the compliance time in paragraph (h) of this AD for the ultrasonic test inspection from “before further flight” to “within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.” This compliance time corresponds to the compliance time specified in the MCAI. We have determined this compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety.

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 (79 FR 47387, August 13, 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 47387, August 13, 2014).

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A55L001-12, dated December 20, 2012. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for damage of certain rudders. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0525.

We estimate that this AD affects 74 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $75,480, or $1,020 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0525 ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2014 (79 FR 47031).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0527-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 47031, August 12, 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, with minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 47031, August 12, 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 47031, August 12, 2014).

We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0527.

We estimate that this AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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-2014-0527 ; 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:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFRs, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFRs and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated his authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100.

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4)) requires the DEA to notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the intent to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA. 1 The DEA transmitted notice of the intent to place AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated September 17, 2014. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated September 30, 2014, and advised that based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS has no objection to the temporary placement of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 into schedule I of the CSA.

The DEA has taken into consideration the Assistant Secretary's comments as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4). AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 under section 505 of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355. The DEA has found that the scheduling of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, and as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1)(A), a notice of intent to temporarily schedule these three synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014. 79 FR 75767.

To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). Available data and information for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 indicate that these three SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

SCs are chemicals synthesized in laboratories and mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. These chemicals, such as CP-47,497 and cannabicyclohexanol (both designed in the 1980s and currently controlled pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), Pub. L. 112-144), were initially used as research tools to investigate the biological mechanisms in the cannabinoid system and to develop novel therapies for various clinical conditions. Other SCs including JWH-018, JWH-073, and JWH-200 (all permanently controlled pursuant to FDASIA) were synthesized in the mid-1990s and studied to advance the understanding of drug-receptor interactions in the cannabinoid system.

SCs were marketed in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. In 2009, their use began increasing in the United States, with law enforcement encounters describing SCs laced on plant material and being abused for their psychoactive properties. Forensic analyses by the DEA and other Federal, State, and local laboratories have identified multiple variations in both the type and amount of SCs applied to the plant material.

As observed by the DEA and CBP, SCs originate from foreign sources, including China and other countries in Southeast Asia. Bulk substances are smuggled via common carrier into the United States and find their way to clandestine manufacturing operations located in residential neighborhoods, garages, warehouses, and other similar destinations throughout the country. The powder form of SCs is typically dissolved in solvents ( e.g., acetone) before being applied to a green plant material or dissolved in a propellant intended for use in e-cigarette devices.

SCs are marketed under hundreds of different brand names, including “Spice,” “K2,” “Blaze,” “Red X Dawn,” “Paradise,” “Demon,” “Black Magic,” “Spike,” “Mr. Nice Guy,” “Ninja,” “Zohai,” “Yucatan,” “Fire,” “Crazy Clown,” “Mojo,” “Black Mamba,” “Black Voodoo,” “Scooby Snax,” “Bizzaro,” and many others. In addition, various “new generations” of SCs reflect the same or similar product labels while yielding a higher intensity and longer-lasting highs while the user remains unaware of the package's exact contents.

The drug products laced with SCs are often sold under the guise of “herbal incense,” “potpourri,” etc., using various product names and routinely labeled “not for human consumption.” Additionally, these products are marketed as a “legal high” or “legal alternative to marijuana” and are readily available over the Internet, in head shops, and in convenience stores. There is an incorrect assumption that these products are safe and further, that mislabeling these products as “not for human consumption” is a legal defense to criminal prosecution.

These substances have no accepted medical use in the United States and have been reported to produce adverse health effects in humans while having a negative effect on communities. Acute and chronic abuse of SCs in general have been linked to adverse health effects including signs of addiction and withdrawal, numerous reports of emergency room admissions resulting from their abuse, overall toxicity, and death.

AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I substances. With no approved medical use in treatment in the United States and limited safety or toxicological information, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 have emerged on the illicit drug market and are being abused for their psychoactive properties. The DEA's analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-402.

SCs were initially developed over the last 30 years as part of research efforts to investigate the cannabinoid system. SCs intended for illicit use were first reported in the United States in a November 2008 encounter, when a shipment of “Spice” was seized and analyzed by CBP in Dayton, Ohio, and later identified as containing JWH-018. At approximately the same time, in December 2008, JWH-018 and cannabicyclohexanol (CP-47,497 C8 homologue) were identified by German forensic laboratories. Since then, many other SCs have been found applied on plant material and encountered as drug products. Beginning in January 2010, the popularity of these cannabinoids and their associated products appears to have increased in the United States as evidenced by seizure exhibits and public health and media reports.

Numerous SCs have previously been identified as product adulterants, and law enforcement officials have seized bulk amounts of these substances. 2 The first SCs identified as being abused include JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and CP-47,497 C8 homologue, followed shortly thereafter by new generations of SCs including UR-144, XLR11, AKB48, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, ADB-PINACA, and numerous others that vary only slightly in chemical structure. JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and CP-47,497 C8 homologue were temporarily scheduled on March 1, 2011, 76 FR 11075, and later permanently placed into schedule I by section 1152 of FDASIA on July 9, 2012. Section 1152 of FDASIA amended the CSA by placing cannabimimetic agents and 26 specific substances (including 15 SCs, 2 synthetic cathinones, and 9 synthetic phenethylamines of the 2C- series) into schedule I. UR-144, XLR11, and AKB48 were temporarily scheduled on May 16, 2013. 78 FR 28735. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA were temporarily scheduled on February 10, 2014. 79 FR 7577.

Recently, another generation of SCs including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 has been encountered. AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 are not included among the 15 SCs that are specifically controlled under FDASIA, and do not fall under the definition of “cannabimimetic agents” as provided under FDASIA. Furthermore, as detailed in reports, law enforcement and public health officials are encountering the abuse of these substances and products laced with these substances, which are commonly marketed under the guise of being a “legal high” with a disclaimer that the products are “not for human consumption.”

As with the older generation of SCs, the major concern of public health officials and medical professionals regarding these new products is the targeting and direct marketing toward adolescents and youth. This is supported by law enforcement encounters and reports from emergency rooms (see Factor 6 of Background Information and Evaluation of “Three Factor Analysis” (Factors 4, 5, and 6) for Temporary Scheduling). However, media reports indicate that all age groups abuse these substances and related products. Additionally, law enforcement has been encountering new variations of SCs in liquid form. The liquids contain one or more SCs, including AB-CHMINACA and AB-PINACA. Users have been identified applying the liquid to hookahs (an instrument for vaporizing and smoking a given material whereby the smoke or vapor passes through a water basin prior to inhalation), vaporizers (also known as “vaping” or using an “e-cigarette,” which allows the user to administer a liquid to be aerosolized and then inhaled), and hookah pens (a type of vaporizer, often much smaller and intended for increased discretion while smoking). As with conventional illicit manufacturing of SC products, liquid preparations of these substances do not adhere to any manufacturing standards with regard to dosage, the substance(s) included, purity, or contamination. It is therefore important to note that following manufacturing principles or standards would not eliminate the adverse effects observed with SC products and SCs would still be considered a threat to public safety.

Despite multiple scheduling actions undertaken by the DEA in an attempt to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with SCs, encounters by law enforcement and health care professionals demonstrate the continued abuse of these substances and their associated products. With the passing of each Federal control action, clandestine drug manufacturers and suppliers are adapting at an alarmingly quick pace to switch the ingredients to new, non-controlled variations of SCs. Exposure incidents involving SCs continue to be documented by poison control centers in the United States as the abuse of these substances remain a threat to both the short- and long-term public health and safety. Exposures to SCs were first reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) in 2011. Recently, the number of AAPCC exposure reports has begun to increase, demonstrating the dangerous health effects observed involving these chemicals. Exposures for August 2014 (442) were the highest received in a monthly period by the AAPCC since July 2012 (when there were 459). As of November 30, 2014, the AAPCC has received approximately 3,359 calls involving exposure to SCs for 2014.

The following information details information obtained through STRIDE  3 and NFLIS, 4 including the number of exhibits/reports, dates of first encounter, and locations of those encounters where available:  5

For AB-CHMINACA, STRIDE contained 21 exhibits, with the first encounter in March 2014. NFLIS contained 586 reports, with the first encounter in February 2014, and locations of all encounters spanning Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

For AB-PINACA, STRIDE contained 245 exhibits, with the first encounter in June 2013. NFLIS contained 3,783 reports, with the first encounter in March 2013, and locations of all encounters spanning Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

For THJ-2201, STRIDE contained 65 exhibits, with the first encounter in September 2013. NFLIS contained 220 reports, with the first encounter in January 2014, and locations of all encounters spanning Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

AB-PINACA has been for sale on the illicit drug market as early as March 2013. Meanwhile, THJ-2201 was first observed in September 2013, and AB-CHMINACA was first observed in February 2014. From December 2013 through September 2014, CBP reported select encounters of these substances with most shipments originating in China and intended for destinations within the United States. Specifically, there were 17 seizures of AB-CHMINACA involving 15.825 kilograms total; 4 seizures of AB-PINACA 6 kilograms total; and 6 seizures of THJ-2201 involving 5.5 kilograms total (see Three Factor Analysis). Additionally, the DEA has reported multiple encounters of large quantities of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 that have been confirmed by forensic laboratories (STRIDE and/or NFLIS).

From October 2013 to September 2014, multiple deaths and severe overdoses occurred involving AB-CHMINACA and AB-PINACA. Adverse effects reported from these incidences have included: Seizures, coma, severe agitation, loss of motor control, loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing, altered mental status, and convulsions that in some cases resulted in death. There have been multiple overdose reports involving AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or a combination of both substances. In addition, there have been at least four documented deaths involving AB-CHMINACA and three documented deaths involving AB-PINACA.

Since abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity and purity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users. Because the three SCs share pharmacological similarities with schedule I substances such as Δ9-THC, JWH-018, and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I substances, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 pose a risk to the abuser. Furthermore, despite being encountered on the illicit drug market and having no accepted medical use in treatment within the United States, these products continue to be easily available and abused across age groups.

Based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacturing, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. Furthermore, the DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these SCs in the United States.

A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 indicate that these three SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the DEA, through a letter dated September 17, 2014, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place these three SCs in schedule I.

In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for her determination that it is necessary to temporarily place three synthetic cannabinoids, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 into schedule I of the CSA, and hereby finds that placement of these synthetic cannabinoids into schedule I of the CSA is warranted in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place these synthetic cannabinoids into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register , and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2).

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

Upon the effective date of this final order, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 are subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of instructional activities, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, conducts instructional activities with, or possesses), or desires to handle, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201, must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312 as of January 30, 2015. Any person who currently handles AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201, and is not registered with the DEA, must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 as of January 30, 2015, unless the DEA has approved that application for registration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA.

2. Security. AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201are subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 871(b), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93, as of January 30, 2015.

3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825, 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302 as of January 30, 2015. Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from January 30, 2015, to comply with all labeling and packaging requirements.

4. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 on the effective date of this order, must take an inventory of all stocks of these substances on hand as of January 30, 2015, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11 (a) and (d). Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all inventory requirements.

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201) on hand on a biennial basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

5. Records. All DEA registrants must maintain records with respect to AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1307, and 1312 as of January 30, 2015. Current DEA registrants authorized to handle AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all recordkeeping requirements.

6. Reports. All DEA registrants who manufacture or distribute AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201must submit reports pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304, 1307, and 1312 as of January 30, 2015.

7. Order Forms. All registrants who distribute AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201must comply with order form requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1305 as of January 30, 2015.

8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312 as of January 30, 2015.

9. Quota. Only registered manufacturers may manufacture AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

10. Liability. Any activity involving AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 not authorized by, or in violation of the CSA, occurring as of January 30, 2015, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action final order is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Pursuant to section 808(2) of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule these substances immediately because they pose a public health risk. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) exempts the temporary scheduling order from standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the DEA's need to move quickly to place these substances into schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls (Schedule of Fees and Charges in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising 33 CFR 402.11, “Schedule of tolls”, to reflect the fees and charges levied by the SLSMC in Canada and to make corrections to various sections. The changes affect the tolls for commercial vessels and are applicable only in Canada. The collection of tolls by the SLSDC on commercial vessels transiting the U.S. locks is waived by law (33 U.S.C. 988a(a)). Accordingly, no notice or comment is necessary on these amendments.

Regulatory Notices: Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478) or you may visit www.regulations.gov.

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

I certify this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is amending 33 CFR part 402, Tariff of Tolls, as follows:

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

The A season allowance of the 2015 Atka mackerel TAC, in the BSEAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 1,150 metric tons by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014), and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (80 FR 188, January 5, 2015).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the BSEAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of the Atka mackerel fishery in the BSEAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 26, 2015. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

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