We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7603). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2012 (77 FR 49386).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0083, dated May 16, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (79 FR 7603, February 10, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

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

In the SNPRM (79 FR 7603, February 10, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the SNPRM.

No comments were provided to the SNPRM (79 FR 7603, February 10, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

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

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

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

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

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

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 7603, February 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 7603, February 10, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

We are adopting a new AD for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters. This AD requires cleaning the upper hub and performing an eddy current inspection of the upper hub for a crack. If there is a crack, this AD requires replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub before further flight. This AD is prompted by a report that four cracks were found at the blade attach holes on a high-time upper hub. This is the first time a crack has been reported in an upper hub at this location in the MD900 fleet. We are issuing this AD to detect a crack on the upper hub, which if not corrected could result in failure of the upper hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of the same type design.

MDHI has issued Service Bulletin SB900-122, dated April 8, 2014. The service bulletin specifies a one-time visual inspection of the upper hub for a crack and damage. If there is damage, the service bulletin specifies replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub. If there are no visible cracks or damage, the service bulletin specifies performing a one-time eddy current inspection. If there is a crack, the service bulletin specifies removing the upper hub, tagging it as unairworthy and returning it to MDHI, and replacing it with an airworthy upper hub.

This AD requires, within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, cleaning the upper hub inspection areas and eddy current inspecting the upper hub for a crack. The eddy current inspection must be done by a level II or higher technician with the National Aerospace Standard 410 or equivalent certification who has performed an eddy current inspection in the last 12 months. If there is a crack, before further flight, this AD requires replacing the upper hub with an airworthy upper hub.

This AD does not require you to contact the manufacturer, return a cracked upper hub to the manufacturer, or do a visual inspection of the upper hub, as does the service information.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 23 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate $85 for labor costs. We estimate 1 work hour to do an eddy current inspection for a cost of $85 per helicopter and a total fleet cost of $1,955. We estimate 11 work hours to replace an upper hub with a required parts cost of $15,998 for a total cost of $16,933 per helicopter.

Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment before adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done within 25 hours TIS, which will be accumulated in about one month based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters that are mostly used for emergency medical service.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 89-12-10, Amendment 39-6230 (Docket No. 88-NM-57-AD; 54 FR 23643, June 2, 1989). AD 89-12-10 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747 100, 747-200, 747-300, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58962). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that a standard access door was located where an impact-resistant access door was required, and stencils were missing from some impact-resistant access doors and adjacent wing skin. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank access doors to determine whether impact-resistant access doors are installed in the correct locations, and replacement of any standard door with an impact-resistant access door if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require an inspection for the presence of stencils and index markers on impact-resistant access doors, and application of new stencils or index markers if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate changes to the airworthiness limitations section. The NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent foreign object penetration of the fuel tank, which could cause a fuel leak near an ignition source (e.g., hot brakes or engine exhaust nozzle), consequently leading to a fuel-fed fire.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines requested that we revise the MPD document number specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013) to reference Boeing 747-400 MPD Document D621U400-9, Revision August 2012. United Airlines pointed out that the airworthiness section of the document is located in Section 9 of the document identified as D621U400-9.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this final rule accordingly.

British Airways (BA) stated the AMM would be a better location for an appropriate task than the maintenance program. BA stated that Task 57-AWL-01, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Doors,” of Sub-section B.2, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Doors,” of Section B, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)—Fuel Systems,” of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of the D621U400-9 Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision August 2012, does not have a fixed interval or a defined inspection type, but simply requires that the access panels are verified to be impact resistant prior to installation. BA stated that this cannot be described as scheduled maintenance and does not consider the best place for this Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) to be an operator's maintenance program. BA stated that many CDCCL items are satisfied through the AMM rather than with a maintenance program task. BA gave an example of CDCCL Task 28-AWL-16, “Fuel Tank Access Doors Configuration” of Sub-section B.1, “AWLs—Fuel System Ignition Prevention,” of Section B, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)—Fuel Systems,” of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of the D621U400-9 Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision August 2012, which also relates to fuel tank access door installation and has no fixed interval; however, this CDCCL requirement is satisfied through the AMM procedure relating to these panels, and not through a task in an operator's maintenance program.

We infer that the commenter is requesting that Task 57-AWL-01, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Doors,” of Sub-section B.2, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Doors,” of Section B, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)—Fuel Systems,” of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of the D621U400-9 Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision August 2012, contain a reference to the AMM similar to CDCCL Task 28-AWL-16, “Fuel Tank Access Doors Configuration” of Sub-section B.1, “AWLs—Fuel System Ignition Prevention,” of Section B, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)—Fuel Systems,” of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of the D621U400-9 Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision August 2012.

We disagree with the request to add an AMM reference. The requirement specified in Task 57-AWL-01 identifies the safety critical item to be maintained and does not mandate a specific AMM. The inclusion of a reference to an AMM is not necessary. However, operators may refer to the AMMs that are referenced in CDCCL Task 28-AWL-16. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013) proposed to require an inspection for the presence of stencils and index markers on impact-resistant access doors, and application of new stencils or index markers if necessary. As specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2315, dated January 11, 2012, the stencils and index markers are located on the doors and adjacent wing skin. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to specify doing an inspection for the presence of stencils and index markers on impact-resistant access doors and adjacent wing skin. We have also clarified in the SUMMARY section and Discussion paragraph of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section that the AD was prompted by a report of a standard access door installed instead of an impact-resistant access door and stencils missing from some impact-resistant access doors and adjacent wing skin.

Paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013) specifies that the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the NPRM must be done; however, the affected airplane models were not identified. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to specify that the actions are applicable for Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F series airplanes. We have also revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to specify that the actions are applicable for Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58962, September 25, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 189 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-160, FA-200-180, and FA-200-180AO airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28647). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI was issued based on reports of deterioration of brake performance due to seal defects caused by deterioration due to age of the O-rings of the brake master cylinder on the affected airplanes, which could result in reduced or loss of control during ground operations. The MCAI requires repetitive replacement of any O-ring of the brake master cylinders. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0311-0002 .

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 28647, May 19, 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 28647, May 19, 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 28647, May 19, 2014).

We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would 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 the AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $10, for a cost of $690 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0311; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

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

On March 27, 2014, we issued EAD No. 2014-07-51, which requires repetitively inspecting the M/R Rotating Scissors for play of the bearing every 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) and, if there is play beyond allowable limits, removing the affected bearing and re-identifying the M/R Rotating Scissors. The EAD also requires removing all affected bearings within 50 hours TIS. The EAD was prompted by reports of certain bearings dislodging from certain M/R Rotating Scissors. The EAD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.

EAD No. 2014-07-51 was prompted by EAD No. 2014-0073-E, dated March 20, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises of reports of the dislodging of bearings, part number (P/N) 3G6230V00654, that were installed on M/R Rotating Scissors, P/N 3G6230A00733. EASA also states that as a result of the investigations accomplished by the supplier of the bearings, it was determined that a quality issue might have affected the production of the bearings. EASA advises that the condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of control of the helicopter. The EASA EAD requires repetitive inspections of certain M/R Rotating Scissors, P/N 3G6230A00733, that have been manufactured or repaired with the installation of certain potentially defective bearings, P/N 3G6230V00654. The EASA EAD also requires replacement of the affected bearings, or as an alternative, replacement of theM/R Rotating Scissors with an affected bearing, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the EAD.

This final rule makes the requirements of EAD No. 2014-07-51, issued March 27, 2014, effective to all parties except those to whom they were made immediately effective through EAD 2014-07-51. This AD contains the requirements of EAD 2014-07-51 with minor editorial changes to revise the references to “the Applicability section of this EAD” in paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5) of this AD to “paragraph (a) of this AD.” These minor editorial change are consistent with the requirements of the EAD and do not increase the economic burden on any operator.

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

AgustaWestland issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-368, dated March 19, 2014 (BT), for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with certain serial numbered (S/Ned) M/R Rotating Scissors, P/N 3G6230A00733; or M/R Rotating Scissors, P/N 3G6230A00733, which have been repaired with the installation of certain S/Ned bearings, P/N 3G6230V00654. The BT also applies to affected parts kept in stock. The BT was issued to identify and replace potentially defective bearings caused by a supplier quality issue. The BT also establishes an interim inspection schedule to reduce impact on operations.

We also reviewed AgustaWestland AW139 Document Code 39-C-62-31-00-00A-286C-A, issue 001, dated August 6, 2012, for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters to specify the detailed inspection of the fixed swashplate and rotating scissors.

This AD requires, within 5 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS, inspecting the M/R Rotating Scissors for play of the bearing. If there is play, this AD requires, before further flight, a more detailed inspection of the M/R Rotating Scissors. If the detailed inspection results determine the play is beyond allowable limits, this AD requires, before further flight, removing the bearing and re-identifying the M/R Rotating Scissors. This AD also requires, within 50 hours TIS, removing any affected bearing.

We estimate that this AD will affect 102 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting the M/R Rotating Scissors for play of the bearing requires a minimal amount of time, for a nominal cost per inspection. Performing the detailed inspection of the M/R Rotating Scissors requires about 1 work-hour, for a cost of $85 per inspection. Removing a bearing requires about 2 work-hours, for a labor cost of $170 per bearing. Parts for replacing one bearing cost $808, for a total replacement cost of $978 per bearing, or $99,756 for the U.S. fleet.

According to AgustaWestland's service information, 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 by AgustaWestland. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS and 50 hours TIS, a short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by EAD No. 2014-07-51, issued on March 27, 2014, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published, with a minor editorial change, in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We received reports of outboard empennage attach fittings that can be found on certain Mooney International Corporation Models M20C, M20E, M20M, M20R and M20TN airplanes that do not meet the approved type design dimensional requirements. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduction of fatigue or static strength, and/or corrosion, which could lead to possible structural failure of the attachment of the empennage to the fuselage causing loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Mooney International Corporation Service Bulletin M20-318, dated June 2, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the outboard empennage attach fittings and instructions for replacement if necessary.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires removal of the empennage assembly for inspection of the outboard empennage attach fittings. If the fittings are found not to meet dimensional requirements, replacement of the affected empennage attach fittings is required. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to Mooney International Corporation.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the attach fittings could result in separation of the empennage and loss of control. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2014-0513 and Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-020-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

According to the manufacturer, all 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 10, 2014, we issued EAD 2014-12-51, which applies to helicopters with 690 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), and requires within 10 hours TIS, dye-penetrant inspecting certain areas of the junction frame for a crack. EAD 2014-12-51 also requires, at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, either repeating the dye-penetrant inspection or performing a borescope inspection of certain areas of the junction frame for a crack. If there is a crack, EAD 2014-12-51 requires replacing the junction frame. EAD 2014-12-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.

EAD 2014-12-51 was prompted by EASA EAD No. 2014-0145-E, dated June 6, 2014 (EAD 2014-0145-E). EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EAD 2014-0145-E to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASA advises that following unscheduled inspections, two events of crack propagation through the junction frame of the tailboom/Fenestron were reported on EC130B4 helicopters, and that an investigation revealed the cracks initiated in the lower right-hand part of the junction frame between the web and the flange where the lower spar of the tailboom is joined. EASA also advises that the cracks were of a significant length, and were not visible from the outside of the helicopter. Finally, EASA advises that this condition, if not detected, could lead to structural failure, possibly resulting in Fenestron detachment and consequent loss of control of the helicopter. EAD 2014-0145-E requires, within 10 hours TIS or 7 days, inspecting the junction frame in the radius between the web and the flange on the tailcone side for a crack. EAD 2014-0145-E also requires, at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, inspecting the frame web for a crack with a borescope. If there is a crack, the EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair procedures.

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

Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 0, dated June 6, 2014 (EASB 05A017) for Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASB 05A017 describes procedures for inspecting, through the inside of the tailboom, the web of the frame and in the radius between the web and the flange on the tailcone side for a crack. If there is a crack, EASB 05A017 directs operators to contact Airbus Helicopters for specific procedures to return the helicopter to conformity.

This AD requires, for helicopters with 690 or more hours TIS:

• Within 10 hours TIS, removing the horizontal stabilizer, cleaning the junction frame, and dye-penetrant inspecting the junction frame for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of EASB 05A017;

• Within 25 hours of the dye-penetrant inspection, and at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, either repeating the dye-penetrant inspection or, using a borescope, inspecting the junction frame for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 2 of EASB 05A017.

• If there is a crack, this AD requires, before further flight, replacing the junction frame.

EAD 2014-0145-E allows a visual inspection for the initial 10 hour TIS inspection, while this AD requires a dye-penetrant inspection. If there is a crack, EAD 2014-0145-E requires contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved repair instructions, while this AD requires replacing the junction frame. Finally, EAD 2014-0145-E requires inspecting the junction frame within 10 hours TIS or 7 days, whichever occurs earlier, while this AD requires inspecting within 10 hours TIS.

We consider this EAD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

We estimate that this AD will affect 194 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, dye-penetrant inspecting the junction frame will require 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85, and a total cost of $16,490 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. Borescope inspecting the junction frame will require .5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43 and a total cost of $8,342 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing the junction frame will require 50 work-hours, and required parts will cost $60,000, for a cost per helicopter of $64,250.

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

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by EAD 2014-12-51, issued on June 10, 2014, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10433). The NPRM was prompted by a report of rudder pedal restriction which was the result of water leakage at the inlet tubing of an in-line heater in the lower part of the forward fuselage.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0172R1, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0056-0002 .

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 10433, February 25, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

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

In the NPRM (79 FR 10433, February 25, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.

No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 10433, February 25, 2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), in which the commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

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

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems' EASA 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 does not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

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

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

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH in the Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph of this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10433, February 25, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10433, February 25, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85, 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-2014-0056; 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 second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes. The second SNPRM published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73744). We preceded the second SNPRM with a first SNPRM that published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14734). We preceded the first SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16188).

The NPRM proposed to require inspecting for a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC” on the left- and right-side horizontal stabilizer identification plate; a detailed inspection for correct bolt protrusion and chamfer of the termination fitting bolts of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, if necessary; inspecting to determine if certain bolts are installed, if necessary, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the termination fitting at certain bolt locations, and repair if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of incorrectly installed bolts common to the rear spar termination fitting on the horizontal stabilizer. The first SNPRM revised the NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability. The second SNPRM proposed to revise the applicable thresholds from flight cycles on the airplane to flight cycles accumulated on the affected horizontal stabilizer.

We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer attachment and loss of control of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received on the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013).

Europe Airpost requested that a note be included in the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) to clarify the instructions for the re-installation of gap covers of the horizontal stabilizer and for the re-installation of the lower inboard trailing edge panels and the lower aft in-spar access doors if removed to perform actions. Europe Airpost stated that two of the four gap covers removed in Part 1, Steps f.(1) and f.(2), of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, have different part numbers than the part numbers listed in the re-installation instructions in Part 9, “Close Access,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011. Europe Airpost also stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, does not include instructions for the re-installation of trailing edge panels and access doors near the horizontal stabilizer.

We agree with the request for the reason provided. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, does not specify the correct gap cover numbers for the re-installation of the gap covers and does not specify adequate procedures for re-installation of the access doors and trailing edge panels. We have determined that operators may use their own maintenance procedures to accomplish the re-installation of the gap covers, access doors, and trailing edge panels. Therefore, we have added new paragraph (j)(6) to this final rule regarding the re-installation of gap covers, access doors, and trailing edge panels. Paragraph (j)(6) of this final rule indicates that any instructions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, regarding the removal and re-installation of gap covers, trailing edge panels, and access doors are not required by this AD.

Boeing requested that the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) be revised to allow identification of discrepant horizontal stabilizers using a list of SAIC serial numbers that Boeing stated it would provide. Boeing stated that using a list of specific serial numbers of suspect horizontal stabilizers would provide relief to operators from having to inspect stabilizers on airplanes prior to line number (L/N) 1556.

We do not agree with the request because, although a list of SAIC serial numbers identifying the suspect horizontal stabilizers may relieve operators from inspecting all airplanes prior to L/N 1556 to locate discrepant parts, no such list has been provided to the FAA. Boeing may submit this information to the FAA for approval as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures defined in paragraph (l) of this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Boeing and Southwest Airlines (Southwest) requested that the use of the word “install” in paragraph (k), “Parts Installation Prohibition,” of the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) be clarified by noting that the word “install” means replace in this context. Southwest stated that use of the word “install” in paragraph (k) effectively reduces the compliance time to perform the inspections in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the second SNPRM, if the horizontal stabilizer is removed for any reason. Without added clarification, this could be interpreted to mean that any time a stabilizer is removed from an airplane for reasons not associated with this AD, and then re-installed on the same airplane, the inspections specified by paragraph (k) of the second SNPRM must immediately be accomplished.

We agree to provide clarification. The intent of the “Parts Replacement Limitation” specified in paragraph (k) of this final rule is that operators replace parts with good parts rather than bad parts. Although the word “install” is generally considered to be broader than the word “replace,” for purposes of this AD, it should be interpreted as meaning “replace” while remaining within the spirit and intent of the AD. Therefore, simply reinstalling the same part during maintenance activities is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (k) of this final rule for that reinstallation.

Southwest and All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that paragraphs (g) and (h) of the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) be clarified to specify which airplanes are subject to the proposed requirements. Southwest and ANA requested that paragraph (g)(2) of the second SNPRM be re-worded to state that any horizontal stabilizer that can be shown to have been delivered on an airplane having a line number after L/N 1556, through use of delivery documentation, should not require inspection, regardless of where that stabilizer is currently installed. Southwest stated that if it can verify that the horizontal stabilizer was originally delivered on an airplane having a line number after L/N 1556, then that stabilizer should not require any inspections in accordance with paragraph (g) of the second SNPRM. ANA stated that, on L/N 1556 and subsequent airplanes delivered with a correct horizontal stabilizer, no inspection is necessary provided the horizontal stabilizer is not rotated among the fleet. ANA requested that the inspections in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the second SNPRM be limited to airplanes delivered prior to the effective date of this AD.

We agree that the inspection requirements specified by paragraphs (g) and (h) in this final rule should be limited to airplanes delivered prior to the effective date of this AD provided the horizontal stabilizer has not been rotated among the fleet. We revised the exceptions provided by paragraphs (j)(4) and (j)(5) of this final rule to limit the applicability of those paragraphs by replacing the phrase “airplanes, regardless of line number” with the phrase “airplanes, with original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness dated before the effective date of this AD.”

We have changed this final rule by adding paragraph (g)(3), which states:

We did not include L/N 1556, as requested by ANA, because L/N 1556 might be affected by the identified unsafe condition and therefore, must be inspected. We have redesignated paragraph (g)(3) of the second SNPRM as paragraph (g)(4) of this final rule.

Southwest and Delta Airlines requested that paragraphs (g)(3) and (j)(3) of the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) include inspection of bolts having part number (P/N) BACB30XL so additional inspections and AMOCs will not be required if these alternative production bolts are found installed on an airplane. Delta stated that the AD needs to address the P/N BACB30XL bolts or wait until the service information is revised.

We do not agree with the request because Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, provides specific inspection criteria and measurements that are applicable only to bolts having P/N BACB30US. These criteria cannot be directly applied to bolts having P/N BACB30XL. The manufacturer plans to revise the service information to include bolts having P/N BACB30XL. However, to delay this final rule would be inappropriate because we have determined an unsafe condition exists and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, addresses the unsafe condition for bolts having P/N BACB30US. When the revised service information is available, we will review the service information and may approve the revised instructions as an AMOC to this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

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 second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the second SNPRM (78 FR 73744, December 9, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 1,147 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington State Department of Transportation, on behalf of the University of Washington Police Department, has requested that the Montlake Bridge bascule span remain closed and need not open to vessel traffic to facilitate timely movement of pre-game and post-game football traffic. The Montlake Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge. These vertical clearance measurements are made in reference to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridges during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge opens on signal, subject to the list of exceptions provided in 33 CFR 117.1051(e).

This deviation period will cover the dates September 6, 2014 to November 22, 2014 as follows. From 10 a.m. to Noon, and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on September 6, 2014; from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on September 13, 2014. The times for the closures on September 20, 2014, September 27, 2014, October 25, 2014, November 8, 2014, and November 22, 2014 will be determined and announced in the Coast Guard's Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as they become available. Due to NCAA television scheduling, the times for the games are not currently available.

The deviation allows the bascule span of the Montlake Bridge to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 10 a.m. to Noon, and 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on September 6, 2014, and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on September 13, 2014, for times to be determined on September 20, 2014, September 27, 2014, October 25, 2014, November 8, 2014, and November 22, 2014. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR § 117.1051(e) at all other times. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Multnomah County has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. To facilitate this event, the draws of the bridges will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation positions as follows: The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7; the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4; Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8; and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, need not open for vessel traffic from 6 a.m. on August 10, 2014, to 12:30 p.m. on August 10, 2014. Vessels which do not require bridge openings may continue to transit beneath these bridges during this closure period. The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, provides a vertical clearance of 90 feet in the closed position, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, provides a vertical clearance of 64 feet in the closed position, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, provides a vertical clearance of 69 feet in the closed position, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed position; all clearances are referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The current operating schedule for all four bridges is set out in 33 CFR 117.897. The normal operating schedule for all four bridges state that they need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This deviation period is from 6 a.m. on August 10, 2014, to 12:30 p.m. August 10, 2014. The deviation allows the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, across the Willamette River, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 10, 2014. The four bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR § 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Multnomah County has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the annual Pints to Pasta event. To facilitate this event, the draw of the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation positions as follows: The Broadway Bridge, at mile 11.7, crosses the Willamette River and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 need not open for vessel traffic from 7:30 a.m. on September 7, 2014, to 10:30 p.m. on September 7, 2014. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath this bridge during the closure period. The normal operating conditions for this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897 which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This deviation period is from 7:30 a.m. on September 7, 2014 to 10:30 a.m. September 7, 2014. This deviation allows the Broadway Bridge, at mile 11.7 across the Willamette River, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 7:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on September 7, 2014. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary the authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B of the IDEA to provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of IDEA section 616 are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under IDEA Parts B and C, which include the data collection requirements in IDEA sections 616 and 618.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21663). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing this particular priority. Except for minor editorial and technical revisions (noted below), there are no differences between the proposed priority and this final priority. We made these minor technical revisions:

(a) Clarified the types of supports and TA the Center must provide when assisting States in the use of the open source tools developed, as described in subsection (b) of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of this priority;

(b) Added the Center on Systemic Improvement (CSI) (if funded)  1 to the list of Department-funded projects that the Center must communicate and collaborate with on an ongoing basis, as described in subsection (a) of the Coordination Activities section of this priority;

(c) Added application requirement (b)(4)(ii), which requires applicants to demonstrate how the Center will support State staff in taking a leadership role in restructuring and aligning data systems within States that are receiving TA from the Center; and

(d) Revised application requirement (f)(4)(ii), which requires applicants to budget for a two and one-half day project directors' meeting in Washington, DC, to occur every other year beginning with the meeting scheduled for Summer, 2016.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, three parties submitted comments on the proposed priority.

We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or comments not directly related to the proposed priority.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed priority follows.

Comment: Three commenters indicated there was overlap between the Center's activities and the activities of the IDEA Data Center (IDC) and the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy).

Discussion: We do not agree that there is overlap between the Center's activities and the activities of IDC and DaSy. The Center will focus on: (1) Providing TA to States to improve their data management procedures and data systems architecture to build data files and reports to improve States' capacity to meet the Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and (2) improving States' capacity to work with source systems (e.g., statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS)) to report high-quality data as required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The other data centers (IDC and DaSY) funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) do not address the need to assist States in restructuring their existing, often fragmented, data systems and in aligning their data collection for students with disabilities with their data collection for the general student population in the SLDS so that States can improve the validity and reliability of the data they report to the Secretary and the public as required under section 616 and 618 of IDEA. The IDC is focused on assisting States with developing necessary data validation processes and procedures to ensure high-quality data submissions to OSEP, but does not work on data management or system architecture. DaSy provides TA to States to support Part C and Part B State preschool programs' participation in the development or enhancement of integrated early childhood data systems. Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters stressed the importance of including general education staff in efforts to restructure and align data systems within the State; and one commenter indicated that States, rather than an OSEP-funded center, should take the lead in these efforts.

Discussion: We agree it is important to include general education staff in the restructuring and alignment of data systems within the State. For this reason, we are requiring the Center to collaborate and coordinate with the State SLDS programs. Additionally, we are requiring the Center to use the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) that the Department has coordinated the development of in collaboration with States and local school districts. We anticipate that this Center will help special education staff engage and work with the general education and SLDS staff within their States to reach the goal of using SLDS to report high-quality IDEA data. We also agree that States can and should lead these efforts and have revised the priority to clarify their role.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of the application requirements of the priority to require that applicants describe how the Center will support State staff in taking a leadership role in restructuring and aligning data systems within the States that are receiving TA from the Center.

Comment: Two commenters noted the significant effort and time a State would need to invest in order to appropriately use an open source tool. These commenters noted that States would need to transfer data into a data store from which an ED Facts file could be created with the open source tool. They stressed that each State would need to get its data into a uniform file structure in order for the generic code to create the ED Facts files. In addition, these commenters questioned whether the open source tool would be worth the amount of time and money it would take to create it.

Discussion: We anticipate that the Center will provide TA on preparing State data for use with open source tools and that this assistance will be highly valued by many States and, therefore, an excellent use of Federal funds. State utilization of the open source tools will be on a voluntary basis.

We expect that the open source tools will be based on CEDS. CEDS will provide a common vocabulary and data model for all States to use in order to make the open source tools accessible. The Center will assist States in mapping their data systems to CEDS in order to use the open source tool. We have revised the priority to clarify that the Center must provide this assistance.

Changes: In paragraph (b)(3) of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of the priority, we have added, as a required activity, that the Center assist States in preparing their data for use of the open source tools that are developed under this priority.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center work with CSI to provide TA to States on using the data systems developed or refined by the proposed Center's work in the development of their State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP).

Discussion: We agree that the IDEA Data Management Center should collaborate and coordinate with CSI (if funded) to further promote the use of high-quality IDEA data.

Changes: We have revised the priority to include CSI in the list of Department-funded projects that the Center will communicate and collaborate with on an ongoing basis.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center work with the Department to integrate and align the various reporting systems as a way to improve the overall quality of the data and facilitate use of the data.

Discussion: We understand the commenter's suggestion. Neither the Department nor the Center can revise the data that States must submit to the Department under different statutes (e.g., sections 616 and 618 of IDEA and under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). However, under this priority, the Department has the authority, under section 616(i)(2) of IDEA, to provide TA (from funds reserved under section 611(c) from FY 2013) to improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements. Thus, the Center will assist the Department by helping States directly integrate and align State-level data reporting systems as a way to improve the overall quality of the data and facilitate use of the data that is reported to the Department and used by the public.

Changes: None.

Final Priority:

IDEA Data Management Center.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Center) to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes: (a) Improve States' data management procedures and data systems architecture to build data files and reports to improve States' capacity to meet the Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States' capacity to utilize their SLDS to report high-quality data under IDEA Part B as required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The Center's work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality protections in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA and will not provide the Department with access to child-level data.

Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the IDEA Data Management Center, at a minimum, must:

Knowledge Development Activities in Year One.

(a) Document the methods of collecting, processing, and reporting the IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data for the 60 State educational agencies (SEAs). The documentation must align the data used by the States to meet the Part B IDEA data to the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS).

(b) Analyze the methods of collecting, processing, and reporting the Part B IDEA data for commonalities and challenges and identify States in need of intensive or targeted TA.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities.

(a) Provide intensive TA  2 to at least 10 States to improve their ability to utilize SLDS as sources for reporting Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The Center must use information obtained through the activities described under paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Activities in Year One section of this priority to inform the intensive TA, which must be focused on States that are not using their SLDS to report their IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data.

(b) Provide a range of targeted and general TA products and services for improving States' capacity to report high-quality Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Such TA must include, at a minimum:

(1) Working with the Department to develop open source electronic tools to assist States in building ED Facts data files and reports that can be submitted to the Department and made available to the public. The tools must utilize CEDS and meet all States' and entities' needs associated with reporting the Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

(2) Developing a plan to maintain the appropriate functionality of the open source electronic tools described in paragraph (1) as changes are made to data collections, reporting requirements, file specifications, and CEDS;

(3) Assisting States in preparing their data in order to use the open source electronic tools (e.g., transforming data into a data store);

(4) Conducting training with State staff to use the open source electronic tools;

(5) Developing CEDS “Connections”  3 to calculate metrics needed to report the Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and

(6) Developing white papers and presentations that include tools and solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system architecture for reporting the Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.

Coordination Activities.

(a) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related support to States, such as IDC, DaSy, the CEDS initiative, the SLDS program, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and CSI (if funded); and

(b) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. OSEP encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, and accurately reporting valid and reliable IDEA data on State data management procedures and data systems architecture and in building ED Facts data files and reports for timely and accurate reporting of the IDEA data to the Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections and ED Facts file specifications for the IDEA data collection; and

(ii) Present information about the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and submission of valid and reliable IDEA data;

(2) Result in improved IDEA data collection and reporting.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Achieve the project's goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes;

(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among them, and any empirical support for this framework;

(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the effectiveness of IDEA data collection strategies, data management procedures, and data systems architectures;

(ii) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it will develop knowledge of States' data management processes and data systems architecture;

(ii) How it will facilitate and support the leadership role State staff will take in improving States' data management procedures and data systems architecture;

(iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA  4 for the 60 SEAs;

(iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 5 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local educational agency (LEA) level, as appropriate;

(v) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs to work with the proposed project including the SEAs' commitment to the initiative, fit of the initiatives, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the LEA level, as appropriate; and

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching.

(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed project will collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its—

(i) Proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses; and

(ii) Proposed standards of effectiveness;

(2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and

(3) The methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project achieved the intended outcomes.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) How key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include in Appendix A of the application a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.

(2) Include in Appendix A of the application a conceptual framework for the project;

(3) Include in Appendix A of the application person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(4) Include in the proposed budget funding for attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' meeting in Washington, DC, to occur every other year beginning with the meeting scheduled for Summer, 2016;

(iii) Two annual two-day trips for Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(5) Include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.

(6) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

Types of Priorities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An IDEA Data Management Center funded under the priority established by this regulatory action will assist States in complying with Federal laws and regulations. Without this regulatory action, the burden of improving State capacity to collect, report, and analyze IDEA data would fall solely on the responsible State and local entities.

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

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

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

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

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

On December 12, 2012, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) formally submitted two separate requests to redesignate the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, respectively. With the redesignation requests, DNREC submitted maintenance plans as SIP revisions to ensure continued attainment of the standards throughout the Delaware portion of the Area over the next 10 years. Each maintenance plan contains MVEBs for the Delaware portion of the Area for transportation conformity purposes. The December 12, 2012 submittal for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS also includes a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory to meet the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On April 11, 2014 (79 FR 20139), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Delaware's redesignation requests for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plans as SIP revisions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards, and the MVEBs included in Delaware's maintenance plans for the Delaware portion of the Area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory for the Delaware portion of the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Finally, EPA proposed that the Philadelphia Area continues to attain both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

In the April 11, 2014 NPR, EPA addressed the effects of two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court): The D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard and the D.C. Circuit Court's August 21, 2012 decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR). However, subsequent to publication of the NPR, United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit decision vacating and remanding CSAPR in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014).

EPA has considered the recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding CSAPR, and has concluded that the decision does not alter the Agency's decision to redesignate the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. The rules require significant reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) from electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. The D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). After staying implementation of CSAPR on December 20, 2011 and instructing EPA to continue to implement CAIR in the interim, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision to vacate CSAPR, with further instruction to continue administering CAIR “pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.”

As stated in the April 11, 2014 NPR, Delaware does not rely on either CAIR or CSAPR for emission reductions that contributed to the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area's attainment of the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, nor does the State rely on either of the rules in its maintenance plans. However, because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality data examined by EPA in issuing the final determinations of attainment for the Philadelphia Area for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 28782, May 16, 2012 and 78 FR 882, January 7, 2013)) and the air quality data from the area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR.

Nonetheless, in this case, EPA believes that it is appropriate to redesignate the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area. As stated in the April 11, 2014 NPR, modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that “backed out” the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that the counties in the Philadelphia Area would have PM 2.5 levels below the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,” Appendix B, pages B-37, B-51, B-57, B-58, B-66, B-80, B-86. This modeling is available in the docket for this rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-2012 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for the Philadelphia Area confirms that 2012 PM 2.5 annual design values for each monitoring site in the Area remained well below the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, and thus the entire Area continued to attain the standard in 2012. As stated in the NPR, 2010-2012 annual and 24-hour design values for the Philadelphia Area are 13.1 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and 31 μg/m 3 , respectively and preliminary 2011-2013 annual and 24-hour design values of 12.3 μg/m 3 and 28 μg/m 3 , respectively. In addition, as stated in the April 11, 2014 NPR, emissions of SO 2 and NO X, the two pollutants targeted by CAIR and CSAPR, have decreased greatly since the Philadelphia Area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and those reductions are projected to continue throughout the maintenance period. Between 2002 and 2007, NO X and SO 2 emissions were reduced by 25 percent and 70 percent, respectively, in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area. For maintenance of the 1997 annual NAAQS, between 2007 and 2025, NO X and SO 2 emissions are projected to decrease by 40 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area. For maintenance of the 2006 24-hour NAAQS, between 2008 and 2025, NO X and SO 2 emissions are projected to decrease by 38 percent and 61 percent, respectively, in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area. These reductions are due to a combination of strong state and federal control measures that were listed in the NPR, and do not include any emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR.

The status of CSAPR is not relevant to these redesignations. CSAPR was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Philadelphia Area's attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS cannot have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In sum, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of these redesignation requests for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area.

Specific details of Delaware's submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR. EPA did receive one public comment in support of this rulemaking action, which can be found in the publicly available docket for this rulemaking action.

EPA is approving Delaware's requests to redesignate the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Delaware's redesignation requests and determined that upon approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS proposed as part of this rulemaking action, it would meet the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both standards. As stated in greater detail in the April 11, 2014 NPR, EPA believes that the monitoring data demonstrate that the entire Philadelphia Area is attaining and will continue to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plans for the Delaware portion of the Area as a revision to the Delaware SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards because they meet the requirements of CAA section 175A for both standards. For transportation conformity purposes, EPA is also proposing to approve MVEBs for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards. Final approval of the redesignation requests would change the official designations of the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, respectively, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment, and would incorporate into the Delaware SIP the associated maintenance plans ensuring continued attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Delaware portion of the Area for the next 10 years, until 2025.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 6, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, in which EPA is approving of the redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, MVEBs included in Delaware's maintenance plans for the Delaware portion of the Area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Video Clips Order, FCC 14-97, adopted on July 11, 2014 and released on July 14, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http:fjallfoss,fcc.gov/ecfs/ . Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

1. One of the Commission's priorities is to ensure that all individuals, especially individuals with disabilities, are able to enjoy the full benefits of broadband technology, including the services that broadband enables such as online video programming. Online viewing of video programming is becoming increasingly significant, and one aspect of this development is that more and more consumers are receiving news, sports, and entertainment programming in the form of online video clips. In this Second Order on Reconsideration (“ Video Clips Order” ), as part of our continued implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), we conclude that clips of video programming covered by the statute must be captioned when delivered using Internet protocol (“IP”) and set out a schedule of deadlines.

2. When the Commission initially adopted IP closed captioning requirements pursuant to its responsibilities under the CVAA it applied the requirements to full-length video programming and not to video clips. 1 The Commission said that it might in the future extend the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips if it found that consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are denied access to critical areas of programming, such as news, because the programming is posted online as video clips. In response to a petition for reconsideration filed by consumer groups, and at the Commission's direction, the Media Bureau issued a public notice seeking updated information on the closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips, including the extent to which the industry has voluntarily captioned these clips. 2 After reviewing the record compiled in this proceeding, we find that a significant percentage of video clips continue to remain inaccessible to consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing. In addition, we have reconsidered the Commission's earlier interpretation of the statute and conclude that Congress intended the IP closed captioning requirements to extend to all covered video programming including clips, but left to our discretion the timeline for compliance with this requirement. Accordingly, to implement the statute fully, and in furtherance of Congress's intent to ensure that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing have better access to online video programming, we reconsider the Commission's earlier decision and revise our regulations to require the provision of closed captioning on video clips delivered using IP when the programming was published or exhibited on television with captions. As discussed in section III below, this Video Clips Order imposes closed captioning requirements on IP-delivered video clips by adopting rules that will:

• Extend the IP closed captioning requirements to IP-delivered video clips if the video programming distributor or provider  3 posts on its Web site or application (“app”) a video clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on television in the United States with captions, regardless of the content or length of the video clip.

• Pursuant to our authority to establish an appropriate schedule of deadlines for purposes of the IP closed captioning requirements, 4 adopt a compliance deadline of January 1, 2016 for “straight lift” clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video and audio that was presented on television, and January 1, 2017 for “montages,” which contain multiple straight lift clips.

• After the applicable deadlines, require IP-delivered video clips to be provided with closed captions at the time the clips are posted online, except as otherwise provided.

• For clips of video programming previously shown live or near-live on television with captions, 5 require captions beginning July 1, 2017 and for the present time allow a grace period of 12 hours after the live programming is shown on television and eight hours after the near-live programming is shown on television before the clip must be captioned online.

• Find that compliance with the new requirements would be economically burdensome for video clips that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's online library before January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips, and January 1, 2017 for montages, and thus exempt this class of video clips from coverage; and

• Generally apply the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips in the same manner that they apply to full-length video programming, which among other things means that the quality requirements applicable to full-length IP-delivered video programming will apply to video clips.

3. In the IP Closed Captioning Order, the Commission implemented section 202 of the CVAA by imposing closed captioning requirements on the owners, providers, and distributors of IP-delivered video programming with respect to full-length video programming. 6 The Commission defined “full-length video programming” covered by the rules as video programming that appears on television and is distributed to end users, substantially in its entirety, via IP. By “substantially in its entirety,” the Commission “mean[t] to reference video programming that is distributed via IP as a complete video programming presentation, such as an episode of a television show or movie.”  7 Accordingly, “full-length video programming” includes, for example, a full-length half-hour program that is missing a few minutes when it is distributed via IP, as well as a full-length program that is posted online in its entirety in multiple segments for easy viewing. The definition of “full-length video programming” excludes “video clips,” which the Commission defined as excerpts of full-length video programming.

4. Although the Commission excluded video clips in the IP Closed Captioning Order, it interpreted the legislative history of the CVAA as signaling Congress's intent to leave open the extent to which the IP closed captioning rules should cover video clips at some point in the future. Hence, the Commission indicated that it might in the future determine that the IP closed captioning requirements should apply to video clips if necessary to provide access to this programming. Specifically, the Commission stated, “If we find that consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are not getting access to critical areas of programming, such as news, because of the way the programming is posted ( e.g., through selected segments rather than full-length programs), we may reconsider this issue to ensure that our rules meet Congress's intent to bring captioning access to individuals viewing IP-delivered video programming.”

5. In addition, although the Commission did not require closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips, it encouraged video programming owners, providers, and distributors to provide closed captions on such content where they are able to do so. In particular, the Commission “encourage[d] the industry to make captions available on all TV news programming that is made available online, even if it is made available through the use of video clips.”  8 The Commission also said that it might find a violation of the IP closed captioning rules if an entity exhibited a pattern of using video clips as a means of avoiding its closed captioning obligations.

6. A coalition of consumer groups filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the IP Closed Captioning Order, arguing, among other things, that the Commission should require captioning of IP-delivered video clips. 9 In an order responding to the Consumer Groups Petition, the Commission noted that consumers were particularly concerned about the availability of captioned news clips, which tend to be live or near-live. 10 Nevertheless, because full-length live and near-live programming became subject to the IP closed captioning requirements only about a month before Consumer Groups filed their petition, the Commission expressed its expectation that entities subject to the IP closed captioning rules would caption an increasing volume of video clips, particularly news clips, given that they would be developing more efficient processes for the captioning of live and near-live programming. The Commission further indicated that it would monitor industry actions on the captioning of IP-delivered video clips, and it directed the Media Bureau to issue a public notice to seek updated information on the topic within six months. If the record developed from the public notice “demonstrates that consumers are denied access to critical areas of video programming due to lack of captioning of IP-delivered video clips,” the Commission indicated that it might reconsider its decision not to subject video clips to the IP closed captioning rules.

7. At the Commission's direction, the Media Bureau issued a public notice seeking updated information on the closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips, including the extent to which industry has voluntarily captioned these clips. In the public notice, the Media Bureau asked whether the Commission should require captioning of IP-delivered video clips, and it invited comment on any issues relevant to this determination. Commenters representing both the industry and consumer groups submitted detailed filings on these issues. The record demonstrates the large volume of IP-delivered video clips currently available to consumers, culled from a multitude of full-length video programs.

8. As discussed fully below, we hereby reconsider our prior decision and conclude that the CVAA covers video clips as well as full-length video programming shown online. Accordingly, at this time we apply the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips if the video programming distributor or provider posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on television in the United States with captions. Specifically, for “straight-lift” clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video and audio that was presented on television, the IP closed captioning requirements will apply beginning January 1, 2016. For “montage” clips, a single file containing multiple straight lift clips, we adopt an extended compliance deadline of January 1, 2017. 11 We find that it would be economically burdensome to apply the new requirements to video clips that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's library before the relevant compliance deadline, and accordingly we exempt such video clips from coverage. 12 Further, we will require captioning for video clips of live and near-live programming beginning July 1, 2017, and we will permit such clips to be posted online initially without captions, but require that captions be added to clips of live programming within 12 hours and to clips of near-live programming within eight hours after the conclusion of the television display of the associated video programming  13 that contained the clip. 14 Finally, we generally apply the Commission's IP closed captioning rules for full-length programming, including the quality requirements, to video clips. 15 Below, before addressing the substance of our video clips requirements, we first discuss threshold issues regarding legal authority and procedure, as well as the benefits of requiring closed captioning for IP-delivered video clips. As discussed fully below, we hereby reconsider our prior decision and conclude that the CVAA covers video clips as well as full-length video programming shown online. Accordingly, at this time we apply the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips if the video programming distributor or provider posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on television in the United States with captions. Specifically, for “straight-lift” clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video and audio that was presented on television, the IP closed captioning requirements will apply beginning January 1, 2016. For “montage” clips, a single file containing multiple straight lift clips, we adopt an extended compliance deadline of January 1, 2017. 16 We find that it would be economically burdensome to apply the new requirements to video clips that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's library before the relevant compliance deadline, and accordingly we exempt such video clips from coverage. 17 Further, we will require captioning for video clips of live and near-live programming beginning July 1, 2017, and we will permit such clips to be posted online initially without captions, but require that captions be added to clips of live programming within 12 hours and to clips of near-live programming within eight hours after the conclusion of the television display of the associated video programming  18 that contained the clip. 19 Finally, we generally apply the Commission's IP closed captioning rules for full-length programming, including the quality requirements, to video clips. 20 Below, before addressing the substance of our video clips requirements, we first discuss threshold issues regarding legal authority and procedure, as well as the benefits of requiring closed captioning for IP-delivered video clips.

9. We find that the CVAA mandates that all “video programming delivered using Internet protocol that was published or exhibited on television with captions after the effective date of such regulations,” including clips of that programming, be provided with closed captioning. 21 The statutory text, quoted above, does not distinguish between full-length video programming and video clips; therefore, as explained below, we believe the statute is most reasonably interpreted as covering excerpts of full-length programming as well as complete and substantially complete programs. To the extent the IP Closed Captioning Order stated that the CVAA's captioning provisions did not cover clips of video programming or did not cover them until some future date, we reconsider and reject that statutory interpretation. Rather, we find that video clips are included within the definition of video programming, and thus the statute mandates that clips of video programming covered by the statutory definition be captioned when delivered by IP.

10. Clips of programming shown on television meet the statute's definition of “video programming,” which is “programming by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast station, but not including consumer-generated media (as defined in section 153 of this title).”  22 As we stated in the IP Closed Captioning Order, “programming `that was published or exhibited on television' by definition constitutes `video programming,' since anything that was published or exhibited on television must be provided by, or be comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station.” There is nothing in the definition of “video programming” that expressly excludes video clips or excerpts of programming. Indeed, only one category of programming is expressly excluded from the definition and that is “consumer-generated media,” a category not relevant for purposes here. The CVAA does not further explain what is meant by programming that is “generally considered comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast station.” However, nothing in the statutory text suggests an excerpt of programming may not be considered “comparable” to broadcast programming under section 202. 23 To the contrary, section 202 instructs us to take into account, in establishing compliance deadlines, whether the programming is “edited for Internet distribution,” indicating that Congress contemplated that the version of a television program provided online may differ, and in fact, be provided in truncated form, from the original airing shown on television. We therefore reject the argument that the term “video programming” does not encompass video clips on the theory that “television broadcasters and multi-channel video programming distributors do not transmit free-standing clips.”  24 For the reasons stated herein, we believe the better reading of the statute is that clips of video programming are covered by section 202.

11. We also reject the contention that the legislative history of the CVAA compels us to interpret section 202 to exclude video clips from the IP closed captioning requirements. The Senate and House Committee Reports state that Congress “intends, at this time, for the regulations to apply to full-length programming and not to video clips or outtakes.” On reconsideration, we reject the Commission's statements in the IP Closed Captioning Order suggesting that this legislative history indicated Congress's intent to authorize the Commission to adopt rules requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips at some future time. 25 After examining this issue in more detail, we believe the better reading of this language is that Congress intended that the statutory captioning requirements cover video clips, but gave the Commission discretion to defer the compliance deadline for video clips when the Commission set the schedule of compliance deadlines under section 202. This interpretation is consistent with the statute, which gives the Commission considerable discretion in establishing “an appropriate schedule of deadlines for the provision of closed captioning” and directs the Commission to consider factors that may affect compliance. 26 If Congress had intended to exclude excerpts from the scope of section 202, we would expect it to have expressly done so in the statute, as it did with respect to “consumer-generated media.”  27 Similarly, if Congress had intended to delay to some future date Commission authority to adopt rules for video clips, we would expect it to have included such a limitation in the statute. For these reasons, we believe our reading of the legislative history on reconsideration is most consistent with the statutory language. As discussed below, we now set phased-in compliance deadlines for captioning of IP-delivered video clips that fall within the definition of video programming (“programming by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast station, but not including consumer-generated media (as defined in section 153 of this title)”). 28

12. Commenters who argue that Congress did not intend the Commission to apply the IP closed captioning regulations to video clips ignore the statutory language. For example, the Digital Media Association (“DiMA”) disagrees with the Commission's interpretation of “at this time” in the legislative history, and asserts instead that the phrase actually means that video clips are not covered “under this statute.”  29 To the contrary, had Congress intended to carve out video clips from coverage of video programming, it could have said so clearly, rather than using the phrase “at this time,” which suggests merely a temporal meaning. If the reports had said that Congress “intends for the regulations to apply to full-length programming and not to video clips,” that would suggest that Congress understood video clips not to be covered by the statutory language. But the use of the phrase “at this time” suggests that the Commission's regulations could require captioning in the future. That could only happen if video clips fall within the ambit of “video programming.” Further, applying the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips is consistent with both the text and stated purpose of the CVAA, which was “to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and better access video programming.”  30 Requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips will help ensure that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing will have access to all covered video programming. And, as discussed above, the temporal reference in the legislative history is consistent with the text of the statute, which gives the Commission discretion to adopt an appropriate schedule of compliance deadlines taking into consideration factors that may warrant a longer compliance period.

13. Further, we conclude that it is procedurally appropriate for us to act on this issue now. We disagree with those commenters who suggest that the Consumer Groups Petition was procedurally defective under section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules. Consumer Groups argued earlier in the proceeding that video clips (as the Commission has defined the term)  31 should be subject to the IP closed captioning rules, and Consumer Groups requested reconsideration, arguing that the Commission wrongly decided the issue. We find that the Consumer Groups Petition does not rely entirely on arguments that the Commission already considered and rejected because it explicitly describes how the video clips exemption is denying consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing access to critical areas of programming, and it presents more up-to-date information than that available at the time the Commission released the IP Closed Captioning Order. In any event, even if the petition does rely on facts or arguments not previously presented to the Commission, grant of the petition still would be proper under our rules because of the clear public interest benefits of requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips, as discussed below. The Commission's rules provide that grant of a petition for reconsideration that “relies on facts or arguments which have not previously been presented to the Commission” is permissible if “[t]he Commission determines that consideration of the facts or arguments relied on is required in the public interest.”  32 For these reasons, it is procedurally appropriate to consider the Consumer Groups Petition.

14. We do not believe that seeking further comment is necessary or appropriate before we can impose any closed captioning requirements on IP-delivered video clips. DiMA claims that the Commission should issue a notice of proposed rulemaking before imposing any closed captioning requirement on IP-delivered video clips, to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment and to obtain feedback on specific proposed rules. We find that a further notice of proposed rulemaking is neither procedurally necessary nor useful prior to imposing the requirements we adopt in this Video Clips Order. This proceeding has included a petition for reconsideration filed by Consumer Groups urging the Commission to require IP-delivered video clips to be captioned. 33 Following the filing of that petition, the Commission released an order on reconsideration deferring a final ruling on the video clips issue raised in the Consumer Groups Petition and directing the Media Bureau to seek updated information on this issue. A public notice was published in the Federal Register seeking comment to further inform the Commission's consideration of the video clips issue and asking “whether, as a legal and/or policy matter, the Commission should require captioning of IP-delivered video clips.”  34 Thus, adequate notice of the proposed rules has been provided and issuing a further notice of proposed rulemaking before imposing the closed captioning requirements for IP-delivered video clips adopted herein would be redundant. Instead, we proceed to this Video Clips Order based on the ample record already compiled, including the additional comments filed recently in response to the public notice. In contrast, for those issues on which we do not have an adequate record for a decision, we seek further comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

15. While we commend the industry for its voluntary efforts to caption IP-delivered video clips, we also recognize that many such video clips remain uncaptioned. The record demonstrates that over the past few years, industry has been exhibiting an increasing volume of online video programming in the form of video clips, and these clips are increasingly captioned. Specifically, while Consumer Groups found in May 2013 that 23 percent of news clips and 10 percent of non-news clips were captioned, the more recent data that Consumer Groups submitted in February 2014 indicates that 57 percent of news clips and 18 percent of non-news clips are captioned. 35 Nonetheless, despite this increase in captioning of IP-delivered video clips, many consumers are denied access to the large volume of clips that remain uncaptioned. A Commission requirement for captioning IP-delivered video clips will ensure that the content, including critical news programming, will be accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, thus significantly benefiting consumers and serving the stated public interest goal of the CVAA. Such a requirement is particularly important because, as stated above, more and more consumers are receiving news, sports, and entertainment programming in the form of online video clips. Consumer Groups explain that a Commission requirement is necessary because, although some video programming providers and distributors “have greatly increased their use of captions for video clips, many others captioned few or none of their clips.”  36 The record demonstrates that because of the large volume of IP-delivered video programming that is posted online as video clips, much of which is not captioned, consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are being denied access to critical areas of programming, such as news, contrary to the intent of the CVAA. 37

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, WT Docket No. 06-49, FCC 14-79, adopted June 9, 2014 and released June 10, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the R&O and OPM also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket 14-79. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. In 1995, the Commission established Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) as a new radio service to be licensed in the 902-928 MHz band. LMS shares this band with a variety of users: Federal radiolocation systems; Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) equipment use; amateur operations; and Part 15 devices. LMS is secondary to Federal users and to ISM devices and may not cause interference to and must tolerate interference from these users and devices. Amateur radio operations are secondary to LMS. Unlicensed Part 15 devices are also authorized in the 902-928 MHz band, although such devices are not afforded interference protection rights and may not cause harmful interference to any licensed systems.

2. In establishing M-LMS, the Commission placed certain limitations on M-LMS operations to facilitate sharing of the 902-928 MHz band by multiple licensed services as well as unlicensed devices. The Commission also adopted certain provisions to facilitate the co-existence of M-LMS operations and Part 15 devices in the 902-928 MHz band. In particular, the Commission adopted a safe harbor rule for unlicensed devices and amateur operations in the band and required that M-LMS licensees demonstrate through actual field tests that “their systems do not cause unacceptable levels of interference to Part 15 devices.” In 1999 and 2001, the Commission auctioned M-LMS licenses.

3. In 2006, noting that there had been very limited development of M-LMS service under the existing rules, the Commission initiated the instant proceeding to examine various new approaches that potentially could make for more effective use of the M-LMS spectrum in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz portions of the 902-928 MHz band. The Commission sought to evaluate whether to revise rules applicable to M-LMS operations and provide licensees greater flexibility to respond to market conditions while continuing to protect federal and other licensed users and also avoiding any significant increased interference to unlicensed users in the band. The record in this proceeding closed on June 30, 2006.

4. Most M-LMS licensees supported having additional flexibility to provide services and opposed any reduction in the power levels in which they could operate, and some sought modification or elimination of the field testing requirement. Commenters representing other users expressed concerns about allowing M-LMS operations additional flexibility, generally supported reductions in the power levels for such operations but not in conjunction with an increase in flexibility, and opposed elimination or supported retention of the Section 90.353(d) field testing requirement.

5. Recent M-LMS developments. Over the past few years, Progeny LMS, LLC (Progeny), which holds multiple M-LMS licenses, developed equipment and offers a service that operates in a manner generally consistent with the existing M-LMS framework. In March 2011, Progeny filed a petition seeking waiver of two existing M-LMS service rules to enable it to deploy an M-LMS network that utilizes a beacon system and advanced technologies not available when the M-LMS rules were adopted in 1995. In December 2011, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology granted a limited waiver to permit Progeny to continue developing its proposed location service, based, in part, on the public interest benefits of facilitating the deployment of a multilateration location service that can provide more accurate location determinations, including more precise location information that can improve delivery of E911 emergency services. This limited waiver applied the existing interference rules governing M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band and required Progeny to satisfy the field testing requirement by submitting field testing for Commission review prior to commencing commercial operations. In June 2013, following review of field tests submitted by Progeny in January and October of 2012, the Commission concluded that Progeny could commence commercial operations of its position location service network. In approving these M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band, the Commission applied the original M-LMS framework—including the interference-related requirements, the power limits permitted licensed M-LMS operations, and the field testing requirement—that the Commission established when it authorized the service in 1995.

6. Based on the record before the Commission, and on recent developments pertaining to M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band, the Commission concludes that the various proposals for wholesale revisions of the applicable rules do not merit further consideration at this time. Accordingly, the Commission terminates this proceeding.

7. In initiating the rulemaking in 2006, the Commission sought to evaluate whether to make various significant changes of the rules applicable to M-LMS to ensure that this service can be deployed in an effective and efficient manner. The Commission stated that its goal in this proceeding is to consider whether greater opportunity can be afforded M-LMS licensees to provide services while ensuring continued access for other licensed and unlicensed uses that share this band. The Commission finds that wholesale changes to existing M-LMS framework that the Commission sought comment upon in the M-LMS NPRM (71 FR 15658 March 29, 2006) are not warranted and that the types of revisions that the Commission sought comment are not necessary to provide sufficient flexibility to M-LMS licensees to provide their location services. Based on recent developments pertaining to M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band, the Commission believes that the existing M-LMS framework can provide M-LMS licensees with sufficient opportunities to provide service offerings. The Commission concluded that Progeny could commence commercial operations of its M-LMS position location service network, within the framework that the Commission initially had established to promote the co-existence of M-LMS operations and unlicensed operations in the band. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that terminating this rulemaking serves the public interest at this time.

8. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

9. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will not send a copy of this Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the Commission is not adopting any rules with this proceeding.

10. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), that the proceeding in WT Docket No. 06-49 is hereby terminated.

This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 5, 2013 (78 FR 73169). As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA published a final rule on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072) amending parts 567, 591, 592, and 593 of title 49 to address issues related to the RI program. In amending the regulations, the agency inadvertently deleted from 49 CFR 592.6(d)(1) text under paragraphs (i) and (ii) that requires the RI to certify to NHTSA, as appropriate, that an imported vehicle either is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) or that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.

One comment was submitted in response to the NPRM, from Ms. Karen Jackson. Ms. Jackson expressed support for the proposed rule, “as long as the amended compliance includes the same standards required of manufacturers in the United States.” Ms. Jackson cautioned, however, that the amended regulations “must not be price fixed to support another manufacturer or holder.” In response, the agency notes that the amendments adopted by this final rule apply to RIs, which are businesses located in the United States. The amendments require RIs to certify to NHTSA that an imported vehicle either is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard or that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation. The agency has established no fees for an RI to make this certification and there is no price fixing associated with the certification. Because all RIs will be required to make the certifications to NHTSA, no competitive advantage can be gained by any individual RI in making this certification.

The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100- 562, “the 1988 Act”), which became effective on January 31, 1990, limited the importation of vehicles that did not comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to those capable of being modified to comply. To enhance oversight, the 1988 Act required that necessary modifications be performed by RIs. RIs are business entities that have demonstrated to NHTSA that they are technically and financially capable of importing nonconforming motor vehicles and of performing the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they conform to all applicable FMVSS. See generally, 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147. As discussed in the January 14, 2011, proposed rulemaking that preceded the final rule (76 FR 2631), NHTSA proposed certain amendments to the RI regulations to protect the integrity of the RI program and to clarify RI requirements. In the final rule that was published on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072), CFR 592.6(d)(1) was amended by adding language requiring that RIs certify to NHTSA that they destroyed or exported nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that was removed from imported vehicles during conformance modifications. The remaining text of the paragraph remained unchanged and read:

The Registered Importer shall also certify, as appropriate, that either:

(i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this chapter); or

(ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.

In the regulatory text of the final rule, NHTSA inadvertently failed to properly mark subparagraphs (i) and (ii), resulting in the deletion of those paragraphs. In this rulemaking, the agency is restoring the language that was originally in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

This amendment does not change the meaning or application of the regulations, as explained in the preamble of the final rule at 76 FR 53072.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;

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

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

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

The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rulemaking is not significant. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule will be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. The rule will have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There will be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR § 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The agency has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the adopted amendments will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The adopted amendments will primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies will be unable to certify that either: (i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this chapter); or (ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.” Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.

Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This final rule 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.

NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action will not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” the agency has considered whether this final rule will have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this final rule will not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of the rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.