Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on February 5, 2007, and published in the February 7, 2007, issue of theFederal Register(72 FR 5646), a Recommended Decision issued on May 7, 2009 and published in the May 12, 2009, issue of theFederal Register(74 FR 22112), and a Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order issued on January 6, 2010, and published in the January 13, 2010, issue of theFederal Register(75 FR 1724).

This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing held on February 21 and 22, 2007, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and March 1 and 2, 2007, in Provo, Utah. Notice of this hearing was issued on February 5, 2007, and published in the February 7, 2007, issue of theFederal Register(72 FR 5646). The hearing was held to consider proposed amendments to the order.

The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).

The Notice of Hearing contained several amendment proposals submitted by the Board. Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on May 7, 2009, filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto. This Recommended Decision was published in the May 12, 2009, issue of theFederal Register(74 FR 22112). Six exceptions were filed during the exception period.

A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order was issued on January 6, 2010, and published in the January 13, 2010, issue of theFederal Register(75 FR 1724). This document directed that a referendum among tart cherry growers and processors be conducted during the period February 1, 2010, through February 13, 2010 to determine whether they favor the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of the growers voting in the referendum or two-thirds of the production represented by such growers. In addition, processors who had frozen or canned at least fifty percent of the volume of tart cherries had to vote in favor of the amendments for them to become effective. All of the proposed amendments were approved by growers and processors. The amendments included in this final order will:

1. Amend § 930.50 of the order to authorize changing the primary reserve capacity associated with the volume control provisions of the order.

2. Amend § 930.54 of the order to authorize establishment of a minimum inventory level at which all remaining product held in reserves would be released to handlers for use as free tonnage.

3. Amend § 930.55 to establish an age limitation on product placed into reserves.

4. Amend § 930.23 to revise the nomination and election process for handler members on the Board, including revisions to conform this section to amendment of § 930.20 regarding membership affiliation requirements.

5. Amend § 930.20 to revise Board membership affiliation requirements.

6. Amend § 930.23 to update order language to more accurately reflect grower and handler participation in the nomination and election process in Districts with only one Board representative.

In addition to these amendments to the order, AMS proposed to make any such additional changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendments that may be adopted. To the extent necessary, conforming changes have been made to the amendments.

An amended marketing agreement was subsequently mailed to all tart cherry handlers in the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was not approved by handlers representing more than 50 percent of the volume of tart cherries handled by all handlers during the representative period of July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.

Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers regulated under the order, are defined as those with annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

There are approximately 40 handlers and processors of tart cherries subject to regulation under the order and approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area. A majority of the producers, processors, and handlers are considered small entities according to the SBA's definition.

The geographic region regulated under the order covers the states of Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Acreage devoted to tart cherry production in the regulated area has declined in recent years. According to data presented at the hearing, bearing acreage in 1987-88 totaled 50,050 acres; by 2006-2007 it had declined to 37,200 acres. Michigan accounts for 74 percent of total U.S. bearing acreage with 27,700 bearing acres. Utah is second, with a reported 2,800 acres, or approximately eight percent of the total. The remaining states' acreage ranges from 700 to 2,000 acres.

Production of tart cherries can fluctuate widely from year to year. The magnitude of these fluctuations is one of the most pronounced for any agricultural commodity in the United States, and is due in large part to weather related conditions during the bloom and growing seasons. This fluctuation in supplies presents a marketing challenge for the tart cherry industry because demand for the product is relatively static. In addition, the demand for tart cherries is inelastic, which means a change in the supply has a proportionately larger change in the price level.

Authorities under the order include volume regulation, promotion and research, and grade and quality standards. Volume regulation is used under the order to augment supplies during short supply years with product placed in reserves during large supply years. This practice is intended to reduce the annual fluctuations in supplies and corresponding fluctuations in prices.

The Board is comprised of representatives from all producing areas based on the volume of cherries produced in those areas. The Board consists of a mix of handler and grower members, and a member that represents the public. Board meetings where regulatory recommendations and other decisions are made are open to the public. All members are able to participate in Board deliberations, and each Board member has an equal vote. Others in attendance at meetings are also allowed to express their views.

The Board appointed a subcommittee to consider amendments to the marketing order. The subcommittee met several times for this purpose, and ultimately recommended several amendments to the order. The Board subsequently requested that USDA conduct a hearing to consider the proposed amendments. The views of all participants were considered throughout this process.

In addition, the hearing to receive evidence on the proposed amendments was open to the public and all interested parties were invited and encouraged to participate and express their views.

The proposed amendments are intended to provide additional flexibility in administering the volume control provisions of the order, and to update Board nomination, election, and membership requirements. The amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order. Record evidence indicates the proposals are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size.

This amendment revises § 930.50 of the order to authorize changing the primary reserve capacity associated with the volume control provisions of the order through informal rulemaking. Prior to this amendment, changing the reserve capacity required amendment of the order through the formal rulemaking process.

The order establishes a fixed quantity of 50 million pounds of tart cherries and tart cherry products that can be held in the primary reserve. Any reserve product in excess of the 50-million-pound limitation must be placed in the secondary reserve.

Free tonnage product can be sold to any market outlet, but most shipments are sold domestically, which is considered the primary market. Reserve product can be used only in specific outlets which are considered secondary markets. These secondary markets include development of export markets, new product development, new markets, and government purchases.

When the order was promulgated, a 50-million-pound limitation was placed on the capacity of the primary reserve. Proponents of the order proposed a limitation on the quantity of product that could be placed into the primary reserve. That limitation was incorporated into the order, and could only be changed through the formal rulemaking process.

Economic data presented when the order was promulgated indicated that a reserve program could benefit the industry by managing fluctuating supplies. Witnesses at the February and March 2007 hearing indicated the order has been successful in this regard. However, the record indicated that the order could be more flexible in allowing modifications to the 50-million-pound limitation should conditions warrant such a change in the future.

If the reserve capacity is changed, costs associated with storing product in reserves could also change. In addition, to the extent such a change could affect supplies in the marketplace, returns toboth growers and handlers could also be affected.

Any Board recommendation to change the reserve capacity will be required to be implemented through the informal rulemaking process. As part of the informal rulemaking process, USDA expects any Board recommendation to include an analysis of the pertinent factors and issues, including the impact of a proposed regulation on producers and handlers. During that process, the Board will recommend a change to USDA, and only if the recommendation is accompanied by adequate justification will USDA proceed with the change.

This amendment revises § 930.54 of the order to provide the Board with the authority to recommend establishment of a minimum inventory level at which reserves will be released and made available to handlers as free tonnage. Establishment of such a minimum inventory level will allow the Board to clear out the primary reserve and subsequently the secondary reserve when a specified minimum inventory level of tart cherries is reached. The specified minimum level would be established through the informal rulemaking process.

Under the order, handlers cannot access the secondary reserve until the primary reserve is empty. Thus, one handler who has not completely disposed of or otherwise fulfilled its reserve obligation can prevent access to the secondary reserve by other handlers.

This amendment will allow the Board to recommend informal rulemaking to establish a minimum inventory level at which it can clear out the primary reserve in order to provide the industry access to secondary reserve inventories.

If such a minimum inventory level is established, costs to both handlers and the Board could be reduced. Handlers incur costs in maintaining reserves. According to the record, these costs include the cost of storage, which can be in the range of $.01 per pound per month. Handlers also incur costs associated with tracking their own inventory levels. Witnesses stated that when inventory levels reach a minimal amount the costs of tracking inventory outweigh the benefit from carrying inventory in the primary reserve.

A significant portion of the Board staff's time is directed at tracking reserve inventory maintained at handlers' facilities. Hearing witnesses testified that while it is difficult to quantify the exact value of the Board staff's time to conduct these activities, the time could be better spent on other industry issues, and it is unnecessary to track minimal levels of inventory.

The establishment of a minimum inventory level at which reserves will be released could have a positive impact on the market. As inventories are released from the reserves, products could be sold, generating revenue for the industry.

If the authority provided by this amendment is utilized, it is expected to reduce costs to handlers and the Board, thus having a positive economic impact.

This amendment revises § 930.55 to require that products placed in reserves must have been produced in the current or immediately preceding two crop years. This amendment will allow the Board to place an age limit on products carried in the reserve. The purpose of the amendment is to help ensure that products of saleable quality are maintained in reserve inventories.

Witness supported the amendment by stating that it will add credibility to product quality for all products carried in the reserve. Prior to this amendment, handlers could carry products they have no intention of selling just to meet their reserve obligation. This amendment will require handlers to rotate product in their reserve inventory, thus preventing them from maintaining the same product in the reserve year after year. Product held in inventory tends to deteriorate over time. This amendment will help ensure that when reserve product is ultimately released, it is in saleable condition and can satisfy the market's needs. Assuring product is available to satisfy the market helps to foster long term market stability.

In terms of costs, handlers may experience some minimal costs associated with periodically rotating product through their reserve inventory. It is difficult to estimate such costs because they will vary depending upon each handler's operation. To the extent costs may increase, they will be proportionate to each handler's share of the entire industry's reserve inventory. Each handler's reserve inventory obligation is based on the handler's share of the total crop handled. Thus, small handlers will not be disproportionately burdened.

It is anticipated that the benefits of providing a good quality product in reserves to ultimately supply markets when needed will outweigh any costs associated with implementation of this amendment.

This amendment relates to nomination and election of Board members under § 930.23 of the order. It will require a handler to receive support from handlers that handled at least five percent of the average production of tart cherries in the applicable district in order to be a candidate and to be elected by the industry and recommended to the Secretary for Board membership. Prior to this amendment, there was no accounting for handler volume in the nomination and balloting process. Each handler was entitled to one equal vote. This amendment will continue to allow each handler to have one vote, but will also require handler candidates to be supported by handlers representing at least five percent of the average production in the applicable district to be eligible to run for a Board position and to be elected by the industry for recommendation to the Secretary. This will help to ensure that handler members on the Board represent the interests of handlers in their district that account for at least a minimal percentage of the volume in the district. The amendment proposed by the Board was modified by AMS. The amendment as modified by AMS will not apply the five percent support requirements to candidates whose potential election could prevent a sales constituency conflict from occurring, as discussed under amendment number five. The modification will help to ensure that all qualified handlers can participate in the election process.

This amendment is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on small businesses. It only affects the nomination and election criteria for membership on the Board by adding volume as an element of support to help ensure that Board membership reflects the interests of its constituency. All qualified handlers, regardless of size, will continue to be able to participate in the nomination and election process. The process will continue to allow for both small and large handlers to be represented on the Board.

This amendment revises § 930.20 to allow more than one Board member to be affiliated with the same sales constituency from the same district, if such a conflict cannot be avoided.

Prior to this amendment, § 930.20 did not allow more than one Board member to be affiliated with the same sales constituency from the same districtunder any circumstances. The purpose of that provision is to prevent any one sales constituency from having a controlling influence on Board issues and actions. However, a situation occurred in District 7, Utah, where this particular provision of the order did not allow the district from having two representatives on the Board, as it was entitled to under section 930.20(b) of the order. In that situation, the only candidates willing to serve on the Board from Utah were affiliated with the same sales constituency. Thus Utah was only able, under the marketing order rules, to seat one of the two Board representatives it was entitled to.

This amendment is designed to prevent a similar problem from occurring in the future by allowing more than one Board member affiliated with the same sales constituency to represent a district, if such a sales constituency conflict cannot be avoided. The hearing record is clear that the sales constituency provision should not prevent a district from having its allocated number of seats on the Board if there are eligible candidates willing to serve on the Board.

This amendment is not expected to have an economic impact on growers or handlers. It relates to representation on the Board, and is intended to help ensure each area covered under the order has the opportunity to achieve its allocated representation on the Board.

This amendment to § 930.23 revises and updates order language to more accurately reflect grower and handler participation in the nomination and election process in districts with only one Board representative.

Sections 930.23(b)(5) and (c)(4) previously referenced Districts 5, 6, 8 and 9 in regard to the nomination and election process. Those were the districts entitled to one Board seat when the order was initially promulgated. However, districts that are entitled to one Board seat have changed over time due to shifts in production. Amending § 930.23(b)(5) and (c)(4) by removing the specific references to Districts 5, 6, 8 and 9 and replacing it with generic language to cover any district that is entitled to only one Board representative based on the representative calculation established in § 930.20 will update order language to better reflect the constantly changing tart cherry industry.

This amendment updates order language to remove incorrect references to district representation in the event production shifts occur. It has no economic impact on handlers, growers, or any other entities.

Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impacts of the proposed amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence is that some of the proposed amendments may result in some minimal cost increases while others will result in cost decreases. To the extent there are any cost increases, the benefits of the proposed changes are expected to outweigh the costs. In addition, changes in costs as a result of these amendments would be proportional to the size of businesses involved and would not unduly or disproportionately impact small entities. The informational impact of these amendments is addressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act discussion that follows.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order to the benefit of the tart cherry industry.

Information collection requirements for part 930 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB Number 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Implementation of these amendments will not trigger any changes to those requirements. It is possible that a change to the reporting requirements may occur in the future if the Board believes it would be necessary to assist in program compliance efforts. Should any such changes become necessary in the future, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

These amendments to Marketing Order 930 have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations that were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing agreement and order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601-612), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon proposed amendment of Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is found that:

(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of tart cherries grown in the production area in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;

(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of tart cherries grown in the production area; and

(5) All handling of tart cherries grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

(b)Determinations.It is hereby determined that:

(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping tart cherries covered by the order as hereby amended) who, during the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, handled 50 percent or more of the volume of such cherries covered by said order, as hereby amended, have not signed a marketing agreement; and

(2) The issuance of this amendatory order, further amending the aforesaid order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the produces who participated in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, (which has been determined to be a representative period), have been engaged within the production area in the production of such cherries, such producers having also produced for market at least two-thirds of the volume of such commodity represented in the referendum.

(3) In the absence of a signed marketing agreement, the issuance of this amendatory order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers of tart cherries in the production area.

It is therefore ordered,That on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of tart cherries grown in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby amended as follows:

The provisions of the proposed order amending the order amending the order contained in the Secretary's Decision issued on January 6, 2010, and published in theFederal Registeron January 13, 2010 (75 FR 1724), shall be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order and are set forth in full herein.

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

To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR part 72, which added a new Subpart K within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L within 10 CFR part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the MAGNASTOR cask design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1031.

On March 26, 2009, and as supplemented on September 4 and December 1, 2009, the certificate holder (NAC) submitted an application to the NRC that requested an amendment to CoC No. 1031. NAC requested modifications to the cask design to change the TS related to neutron absorber qualification and acceptance testing. Specifically, the amendment will revise TS 4.1.1.b and incorporate by reference into the MAGNASTOR CoC, Sections 10.1.6.4.5, 10.1.6.4.6, 10.1.6.4.7, and 10.1.6.4.8 of the FSAR regarding the acceptance testing of borated aluminum alloy and borated metal matrix composite neutron absorber material. The amendment will also include other changes in Appendices A and B of the TS to incorporate minor editorial corrections. As documented in the SER, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected.

This direct final rule revises the MAGNASTOR System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1031. The amendment consists of the changes described above, as set forth in the revised CoC and TS. The particular TS which are changed are identified in the SER.

The amended MAGNASTOR System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TS, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72; thus, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into MAGNASTOR System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1031 under 10 CFR 72.212.

Certificate No. 1031 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment Number 1.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the MAGNASTOR System. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on August 30, 2010. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by July 15, 2010, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this issue of theFederal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this issue of theFederal Register.

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

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

The Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the headingADDRESSES, above.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment and, on the basis of this environmental assessment, has made a finding of no significant impact. This rule will amend the CoC for the MAGNASTOR System cask design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. The amendment will change the TS related to neutron absorber qualification and acceptance testing. Specifically, the amendment will revise TS 4.1.1.b and incorporate by reference into the MAGNASTOR CoC, Sections 10.1.6.4.5, 10.1.6.4.6, 10.1.6.4.7, and 10.1.6.4.8 of the FSAR regarding the acceptance testing of borated aluminum alloy and borated metal matrix composite neutron absorber material. The amendment will also include other changes in Appendices A and B of the TS to incorporate minor editorial corrections.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mailJayne.McCausland@nrc.gov.

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

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

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), the NRC issued an amendment to Part 72 that approved the MAGNASTOR System cask design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. On March 26, 2009, and as supplemented on September 4 and December 1, 2009, the certificate holder (NAC) submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1031 to change the TS related to neutron absorber qualification and acceptance testing. Specifically, the amendment will revise TS 4.1.1.b and incorporate by reference into the MAGNASTOR CoC, Sections 10.1.6.4.5, 10.1.6.4.6, 10.1.6.4.7, and 10.1.6.4.8 of the FSAR regarding the acceptance testing of borated aluminum alloy and borated metal matrix composite neutron absorber material. The amendment will also include other changes in Appendices A and B of the TS to incorporate minor editorial corrections.

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

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

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

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

The Board published a document in theFederal Registerof June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31665). The document (FR Doc. 2010-13280) amended Regulation E and the official staff commentary to clarify certain aspects of the November 2009 Regulation E final rule addressing overdraft services, and contained a typographical error in amendatory instruction number 2.

In the final rule, FR Doc. 2010-13280, published on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31665) make the following correction:

On March 11, 2010, the FAA published in theFederal Registera notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Victorville, CA (74 FR 11476). Interested parties wereinvited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,500 feet MSL within a 6-mile radius of Southern California Logistics Airport, Victorville, CA, excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of Adelanto Airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations. This rule also adjusts the geographic coordinates of Southern California Logistics Airport in Class D and E airspace, and changes the airport name from Southern California International Airport to Southern California Logistics Airport.

The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Southern California Logistics Airport, Victorville, CA.

Background

In this rule, BIS makes a technical amendment to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove three references concerning Federal court jurisdiction to review certain BIS enforcement orders. Paragraph (e) of section 766.22 discusses judicial review of a final decision and order by the Under Secretary for Industry and Security in a BIS export control administrative proceeding. Section 766.24 contains two references to judicial review. Paragraph (g) of section 766.24 discusses judicial review of a final decision and order by the Under Secretary concerning the administrative appeal of a temporary denial order issued by the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, and paragraph (e)(5) of the same section includes a reference to paragraph (g). Federal court jurisdiction to review these BIS final orders is governed by statute, not by regulation. BIS is deleting these provisions, which were not promulgated with the intent to create or govern Federal court jurisdiction.

Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by the Notice of August 13, 2009 (74 FR 41325 (August 14, 2009)), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule does not involve a collection of information, and, therefore, does not implicate requirements of the PRA.

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

4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule is one of procedure, which is exempted from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. This rule only deletes provisions from Part 766 that discuss federal court jurisdiction, which is an issue governed by statute, not by regulation. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Sheila Quarterman, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230.

In rule document 2010-13080 beginning on page 31688 in the issue of Friday, June 4, 2010 make the following corrections:

1. On page 31689, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, in the fourth and fifth lines, “December 1, 2010” should read “December 6, 2010”.

2. On the same page, in the same column, in the same paragraph, in the 10th and 11th lines, “December 2, 2010” should read “December 7, 2010”.

3. On page 31691, in the first column, in the second line from the top, “December 1, 2010” should read “December 7, 2010”.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2177. The information is required to be maintained in order for the provider of indoor tanning services to accurately calculate the tax on indoor tanning services when those services are offered with other goods and services, as described in § 49.5000B-1T(d)(2). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of theFederal Register.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

This document amends the Excise Tax Procedural Regulations (26 CFR part 40) and the Facilities and Services Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 49) under section 5000B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 5000B was added to the Code by section 10907 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), to impose an excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Section 5000B(a) imposes on any indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount paid for such service. Indoor tanning service, as defined in section 5000B(b), does not include any phototherapy service provided by a licensed medical professional. The regulations define phototherapy service and clarify that such service must be performed by, and on the premises of, a licensed medical professional.

The tax applies to amounts paid after June 30, 2010, for indoor tanning services. Liability for the tax arises at the time of payment for the indoor tanning services. In some cases (such as purchase of an undesignated payment card, discussed later in this preamble), it may not be possible to determine whether there is a payment for indoor tanning services. Thus, the regulations provide in those cases that a payment is treated as made, and the tax is imposed, at the time it can reasonably be determined that the payment is made specifically for indoor tanning services. In the case of membership fees paid to certain physical fitness facilities that provide indoor tanning services, the regulations provide a different rule, discussed later in this preamble.

The regulations provide that the “amount paid” for purposes of determining the tax base includes all amounts paid to the provider for indoor tanning services, including any amount paid by insurance. Providers of indoor tanning services, however, often sell other goods and services (such as protective eyewear, footwear, towels, and tanning lotions; manicures, pedicures and other cosmetic or spa treatments; and access to sport or exercise facilities) in addition to indoor tanning services. Thus, the regulations provide rules for determining the tax when the provider charges for other goods and services in addition to indoor tanning services.

Section 6001 requires taxpayers to keep books and records sufficient to show whether or not they are liable for tax. To that end, the regulations allow the provider to exclude charges for other goods and services if the charges are separable, do not exceed the fair market value of the other goods and services, and are shown in the exact amounts in the records pertaining to the indoor tanning services charge.

If the charges are not separately stated, but the total amount paid covers indoor tanning services, then the tax is based on the portion of the amount paid that is reasonably attributable to the indoor tanning services. For example, if the provider sells bundled services in which the indoor tanning service is bundled with other goods and services, and the charge is not separately stated, the tax applies to the amount paid that is reasonably attributable to the indoor tanning services. This is consistent with the approach taken in Rev. Rul. 63-155 (1963-2 CB 566) (relating to the application of the section 4261 tax on transportation by air to a package tour sold by a hotel that includes airfare, hotel accommodations, and other services not subject to the section 4261 tax).

The regulations provide that a payment for indoor tanning services is treated as made, and liability for the tax is imposed, at the time it can reasonably be determined that the payment is made specifically for indoor tanning services. If a payment is made with a gift certificate, gift card or similar device with a monetary value that can be redeemed for goods or services that may, but do not necessarily, include indoor tanning services (an undesignated payment card), it can reasonably be determined that a payment is made specifically for indoor tanning services when the undesignated payment card is redeemed, in whole or in part, to pay specifically for indoor tanning services (and not when a payment is made to purchase the undesignated payment card). This is consistent with the approach taken in Rev. Rul. 56-157 (1956-1 CB 523) (relating to the application of the section 4261 tax on transportation by air to a gift certificate that could be redeemed for air transportation or cash). In these cases, the provider of the services calculates the tax on the amount of the undesignated payment card that is redeemed for indoor tanning services at the time it is redeemed, and the rules of section 5000B(c) apply to determine the person liable for the tax.

If, however, the provider sells bundled services in which access to indoor tanning services (in a specified or unlimited amount) over a period of time is bundled with other goods and services, it can reasonably be determined that the payment is made specifically for indoor tanning services at the time the bundled services are purchased, because there is value attributable to the access to indoor tanning services. This is different than the example of the gift certificate, because the gift certificate can be redeemed entirely for non-taxable services, but the purchase of bundled services will always include access to indoor tanning services in the “bundle”. In addition, for purposes of these regulations, payments for indoortanning services are subject to tax, regardless of actual usage. Thus, the tax applies to the amount paid that is reasonably attributable to the access to indoor tanning services, and the rules of section 5000B(c) apply to determine the person liable for the tax.

On the other hand, in the case of a payment of a membership fee to a qualified physical fitness facility (QPFF) (as defined in the regulations) that includes access to indoor tanning services, the IRS and Treasury Department have determined that the access is incidental to the QPFF's predominant business or activity and any amount attributable to such access would be difficult to calculate and administer. Thus, an amount paid to a QPFF is not a payment for indoor tanning services and the tax is not imposed on the amount paid. The regulations narrowly define QPFF to require, among other things, that the predominant business or activity of the facility is to serve as a physical fitness facility, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances. Thus, for example, a business predominantly engaged in providing indoor tanning or other cosmetic services cannot become a QPFF by allowing users access to exercise classes or pieces of exercise equipment. The regulations further provide that a QPFF cannot charge separately for indoor tanning services, offer such services to the public, or offer different membership fee rates based on access to indoor tanning services. Thus, a physical fitness facility that distinguishes memberships based on access to indoor tanning services is not a QPFF.

Section 5000B(c)(1) provides that the person liable for the tax is the individual on whom the indoor tanning service is performed. In some cases, a person might pay for services to be performed on someone else, such as by purchasing a gift certificate for indoor tanning services. Because the tax is calculated on the amount paid for the indoor tanning services, and because the statute contemplates that the tax will be collected at the time payment is made, the person who pays for the services (payor) is deemed to be the person on whom the services are performed for purposes of collecting the tax. Thus, the payor is liable for the tax on the services. If a person pays for a gift certificate for indoor tanning services (or for bundled services that includes indoor tanning services), then the liability for the tax arises at the time of payment.

However, if a person purchases an undesignated payment card, then a payment has not been made for indoor tanning services until the undesignated payment card is redeemed specifically to pay for indoor tanning services. In that case, the liability for the tax arises at the time the undesignated payment card is redeemed. The person who redeems the card for indoor tanning services is deemed to be the person on whom the services are performed for purposes of collecting the tax, and that person is liable for the tax on the services.

Section 5000B(c)(2) provides that the person receiving the payment on which tax is imposed (the provider) generally must collect the tax from the payor and pay the tax over quarterly to the government. These regulations provide that the amount paid by the payor to the provider is presumed to include the tax if the tax is not separately stated.

In the Proposed Rules section in this issue of theFederal Register, the IRS and Treasury Department are requesting comments regarding these temporary regulations, including comments on whether the presumption relating to section 5000B(c)(2) (that the amount paid by the payor to the provider includes the tax if the tax is not separately stated) is consistent with the manner in which providers maintain books and records and specifically whether such a rule is useful for purposes of minimizing recordkeeping burdens of the providers.

If the payor does not pay the tax at the time payment for the indoor tanning services is made, section 5000B(c)(3) provides that, to the extent the tax is not collected, the provider must pay the tax. Thus, the regulations provide that if the provider of the indoor tanning services fails to collect the tax from the payor at the time the payor makes a payment for indoor tanning services, the provider is liable for the tax.

These regulations apply the existing excise tax procedural rules in 26 CFR part 40 to the tax on indoor tanning services. Thus, the tax, whether paid by the payor or the provider under section 5000B(c), is reported by the provider on Form 720 “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.” These temporary part 40 regulations do not require semimonthly deposits of tax; rather, full payment of the tax is due quarterly at the time Form 720 is timely filed. The existing regulations also provide that once a Form 720 is required to be filed for a calendar quarter, a Form 720 must be filed for each subsequent calendar quarter, whether or not liability is incurred (or tax must be collected and paid over) during that subsequent quarter, until a final return under § 40.6011(a)-2 is filed.

Some providers of indoor tanning services may operate more than one location at which the services are provided. Each business unit that has, or is required to have, a separate employer identification number is treated as a separate person that must file a separate Form 720.

Collected taxes are held in special trust for the United States pursuant to section 7501, and any person who willfully fails to collect and pay over the tax may be subject to the penalty in section 6672. The IRS will generally administer the indoor tanning services tax (in Chapter 49 of the Code), the same way it administers the other collected excise taxes in Chapter 33 of the Code (the communications and transportation taxes). However, the reporting provisions in § 49.4291-1 of the regulations (relating to certain inabilities to collect or refusals to pay tax) do not apply to the tax on indoor tanning services because section 4291 provides that these rules apply only to the Chapter 33 taxes.

The IRS revenue rulings cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the Special Analysis section in the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of theFederal Register.Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Taylor Cortright, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.

These interest assumptions are found in two PBGC regulations: the regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and the regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022). Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for the third quarter (July through September) of 2010 and updates the assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for July 2010.

The interest assumptions prescribed under the asset allocation regulation (found in Appendix B to Part 4044) are used for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. Two sets of interest assumptions are prescribed under the benefit payments regulation: (1) A set for PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and (2) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022).

This amendment (1) Adds to appendix B to part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during the third quarter (July through September) of 2010, (2) adds to appendix B to part 4022 the interest assumptions for PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during July 2010, and (3) adds to appendix C to part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during July 2010.

The interest assumptions that PBGC will use for valuing benefits for allocation purposes (set forth in appendix B to part 4044) will be 4.93 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.66 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the second quarter of 2010, these interest assumptions represent an increase of 0.30 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and an increase of 0.15 percent for all years thereafter.

The interest assumptions that PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in appendix B to part 4022) will be 2.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in paystatus. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for June 2010, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in appendix B to part 4022).

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during July 2010, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Delaying action on this rulemaking to allow for a comment period would be contrary to the public interest in allowing this event to go on as scheduled. Furthermore, the location of the event and short duration (one hour once each week, in the evening) mean that the chance of significant impact on or interest by the boating public is small.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard further finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Registerfor the same reason as above. Delaying the establishment of the safety zone could result in mariners approaching the fireworks barge, creating a hazardous scenario with potential for loss of life and property.

The New Hope Chamber of Commerce has contracted Garden State Fireworks Inc. for a fireworks display to reoccur once a week on Friday evenings from May 21, 2010 to July 30, 2010. The establishment of this safety zone will prevent vessels from entering the fireworks fallout area, located on the Delaware River at 40°21′49″ N./074°567′54″ W. This safety zone will help protect both life and property on the Delaware River.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone which will be enforced May 21, 2010 from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. and then every Friday from May 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.

Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The safety zone is necessary to protect life and property operating on the navigable waterways of the Delaware River in New Hope, PA.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic on the navigable waters of the Delaware River, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the safety zone will be in effect. While the safety zone will be reoccurring on a weekly basis, the enforcement window lasts for only an hour in an area that is bordered downriver by rapids, minimizing local traffic that might pass though the affected area.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Delaware River, New Hope, PA Fridays from May 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for a maximum duration of one hour. Vessel traffic may pass through the affected area on the Delaware River during time periods other than the time needed to enforce the safety zone in during the “Lights on the River” fireworks shows.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves a limited-duration recurring safety zone intended to protect life and property on the navigable waterways of the Delaware River. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting participants and spectators in the Tacoma Freedom Fair Air show.

The Coast Guard is establishing this temporary safety zone to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during the Tacoma Freedom Fair Air Show taking place along Ruston Way in Commencement Bay near Tacoma, Washington. The safety zone is necessary because of the numerous potential hazards associated with air show events.

The temporary safety zone created by this rule encompasses all waters within the points 47°−17.63′ N., 122°−28.724′ W.; 47°−17.059′ N., 122°−27.538′ W.; 47°−16.66′ N., 122°−27.963′ W.; and 47°−17.231′ N., 122°−29.149′ W. The zone resembles a rectangle measuring approximately 2000 yards along the shoreline of Ruston Way and extending approximately 1100 yards into Commencement Bay. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the event to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or Designated Representative. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may be assisted by other local, state, and Federal agencies in the enforcement of this safety zone.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it is minimal in size and short in duration.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities:The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected waterway during the time of enforcement. This safety zone will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: It is minimal in size, short in duration and vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves a safety zone on the waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, Washington during the Tacoma Freedom Fair Air Show.

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists, as it would be impracticable to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule, because the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the immediate dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area.

The Delta Independence Day Foundation will sponsor a fireworks display on July 04, 2010, 300 feet from the North Eastern shoreline of Mandeville Island, CA. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area around the fireworks barge during the loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display.

This safety zone will apply to navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor in the San Joaquin River, during loading of pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge at Dutra Corp Yard, Rio Vista, CA, during transit to the launch location and until the completion of the fireworks display. The temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge during loading and transit within a radius of 100 feet, from 10 a.m. on July 02, 2010 until 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2010. At 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 04, 2010, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. The fireworks launch site will be located approximately 300 feet off the shore in position 38°03′19.37″ N., 121°31′54.34″ W. (NAD 83).

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks site while the fireworks are loaded onto the barge, while the barge in transiting to the display location, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because of the small area and short duration of the safety zone. Furthermore, the local waterway users will be notified via public BroadcastNotice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of the areas off Stockton, CA to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones.

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in thedocket where indicated underADDRESSES.

Regulatory Information

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register.Immediate action is necessary in order to restrict vessel movement and ensure maritime public safety during this firework display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone in order to restrict vessel movement in and around the fireworks discharge site. The Coast Guard intends to promote maritime safety through this action by ensuring a safe distance is kept from the fireworks discharge site.

This rule will prevent vessels from entering and congregating near the fireworks discharge site. Vessels will be directed to transit around the zone if the on-scene patrol commander deems that it is safe to do so.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it is minimal in size and short in duration.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities:The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the affected waterways during times of enforcement. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone is minimal in size, short in duration and if practical then vessels will be able to transit around the zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction. This rule involves a firework display from a barge in Port Gardner Bay, WA.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be madeavailable in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

On February 25, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in theFederal Register(75 FR 8566). We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. We also did not receive any requests for a public meeting; therefore, a public meeting was not held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Immediate action is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to these safety zones' intended objective of protecting persons and vessels involved in the fireworks events.

The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing permanent safety zones to ensure public safety during annual firework shows occurring within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, WA, AOR. This action is necessary in order to restrict vessel movement and reduce vessel congregation in the proximity of firework discharge sites ensuring maritime public safety.

Coast Guard typically receives numerous applications in these geographic areas for firework displays. Currently, temporary safety zones are established on an emergency basis for each individual display thereby limiting opportunity for public comment. Establishing permanent safety zones through notice and comment rulemaking provided the public the opportunity to comment on the safety zone locations, size and length of time each zone will be enforced. Additionally, this final rule includes a variety of locations and date ranges to allow for speedy and safe activation of permanent safety zones. Firework displays occur in these locations and on these dates with regularity. The establishment of multiple permanent safety zones provides enhanced public safety measures by reducing the number of emergency safety zones needed for firework displays. Notification of the specific dates and time for activation of safety zones will be available to the maritime public.

Each year organizations sponsor firework displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge, a tug and a barge, or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. An on-scene patrol commander may allow persons within the safety zone if conditions permit.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule is not a significant regulatory action because the period of enforcement and size of these safety zones are minimal.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the affected waterways while this rule is enforced. These safety zones will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zones included in this rule will be in effect for a short duration when vessel traffic volume is low and are limited in size. If safe to do so, traffic will be allowed to pass through these safety zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port or Designated Representative.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones around firework display sites within the COTP Puget Sound AOR. Each event will individually comply with NEPA requirements on an annual basis as ensured through the submittal of an annual marine event permit. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking USCG-2010-0409, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online viahttp://www.regulations.gov,it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “submit a comment” box, which willthen become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2010-0409” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and we may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2010-0409” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before July 15, 2010 to the Docket Management Facility using one of the four methods specified underADDRESSESexplaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C.(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest since U.S. Navy submarine operations in the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone are ongoing, making the security zone created by this rule immediately necessary to help ensure the security of the submarines, their Coast Guard security escorts, and the maritime public in general.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Registerbecause waiting 30 days would be contrary to the public interest for the same reasons discussed above.

U.S. Navy submarines frequently operate in the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.70-10, which includes Mamala Bay and coastal waters of the State of Hawaii. Due to the numerous security concerns involved with submarine operations near shore, the Coast Guard frequently provides security escorts of submarines when operating in those areas. Security escorts of this type require the Coast Guard personnel on-scene to make quick judgments about the intent of vessels operating in close proximity to the submarines and decide, occasionally with little information about the vessel or persons on board, whether they pose a threat to the submarine.

The security zone established by this rule is necessary to keep persons and vessels a sufficient distance away from submarines operating in and around Mamala Bay and coastal waters of Hawaii so as to (1) avoid unnecessary and potentially dangerous contact with or distraction of Coast Guard security escorts and (2) give Coast Guard security escorts additional time and space to determine the intent of vessels that, for whatever reason, are operating too close to a submarine. Both of these effects will help ensure the security of the submarines, their Coast Guard security escorts, and the maritime public in general.

This rule establishes a moving security zone encompassing all waters within 1,000 yards of any U.S. Navy submarine that is operating in the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.70-10, which includes Mamala Bay and coastal waters of the State of Hawaii, and is being escorted by the Coast Guard. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the security zone unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander. While naval vessel protection zones, under 33 CFR 165.2030, around these escorted U.S. Navy submarines are still in effect, persons would need to seek permission from the Coast Guard patrol commander to enter within 1,000 yards of these escorted submarines while they are in the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone.

We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

The Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that (1) the security zone is only in effect for the short periods of time when submarines are operating in and around Mamala Bay and other coastal waters of Hawaii and being escorted by the Coast Guard, (2) the security zone moves with the submarines, (3) vessels will be able to transit around the security zone at most locations in Mamala Bay and other coastal waters of Hawaii, and (4) vessels may, if necessary, be authorized to enter the security zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, andgovernmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit an area covered by the security zone. The security zone will not, however, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because (1) the security zone is only in effect for the short periods of time when submarines are operating in and around Mamala Bay and other coastal waters of Hawaii and being escorted by the Coast Guard, (2) the security zone moves with the submarines, (3) vessels will be able to transit around the security zone at most locations in Mamala Bay and other coastal waters of Hawaii, and (4) vessels may, if necessary, be authorized to enter the security zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this interim rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this interim rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

This interim rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this interim rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

We have analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this interim rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This interim rule involves the establishment of a security zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categoricalexclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

On February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), VA proposed to amend its loan guaranty regulations to implement new program requirements for the mortgage servicing industry. The notice of proposed rulemaking was followed by publication of a supplemental notice regarding the computer system for the new requirements (71 FR 68498, Nov. 27, 2006) and a second supplemental notice regarding VA's proposal for phasing-in the requirements (72 FR 30505, June 1, 2007). The second supplemental notice stated: “When all industry segments have been brought on-line, VA will remove current §§ 36.4300 through 36.4393, and redesignate the new 4800 series to replace current §§ 36.4300 through 36.4393. At that time, all program participants would be subject to the new rules.”

On February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6294), VA published a final rule amending 38 CFR part 36 to implement the new program requirements. VA temporarily designated then-existing provisions found at 38 CFR 36.4300 through 36.4393 (the “36.4300 series”) as a new subpart B and established a new subpart F to include new §§ 36.4800 through 36.4893 (the “36.4800 series”). The 36.4800 series replicated most aspects of the VA Loan Guaranty Program set forth in the 36.4300 series, but also included changes related to the servicing and liquidating of guaranteed housing loans in default, and the submission of guaranty claims by loan holders.

VA implemented the phase-in of the subpart F provisions over a period of 11 months and completed the process during the 2nd quarter of FY 2009, following which the 36.4300 series became redundant and obsolete. Rather than eliminating subpart B altogether, however, we are redesignating the 36.4800 series to replace the 36.4300 series in its entirety. This action is necessary because most program participants are accustomed to referring to the 36.4300 series for regulations pertaining to the VA Loan Guaranty Program.

This final rule deletes only redundant or obsolete provisions. It also redesignates current regulations without making any substantive changes. Accordingly, it is exempt from the prior notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action 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 economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. Even so, the Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This amendment will not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, this amendment is also exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603-604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number and title for the program affected by this document are 64.114, Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and Insured Loans.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 4, 2010 for publication.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a pesticide formulator. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Pesticide formulators (NAICS code 32532), e.g., establishments that formulate and prepare insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or other pesticides from technical chemicals or concentrates produced by pesticide manufacturing establishments.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On August 16, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule titled “Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment” (71 FR 47330) (container and containment rule), establishing 40 CFR part 165 and amending 40 CFR part 156. The container and containment rule established regulations for the safe storage and disposal of pesticides to reduce the likelihood of unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. The container and containment regulations include requirements for pesticide container design; procedures, standards, and label language to facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to their being used, recycled, or discarded; and requirements for containment of stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling operations. The 2006 rule required that all pesticide products distributed or sold by a registrant as of August 16, 2009, bear labels that comply with the rule's label language requirements (40 CFR 156.159). On October 29, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule that made various amendments to the container and containment rule, including extending the original labeling compliance date from August 16, 2009 to August 16, 2010.

Specifically, 40 CFR part 156, subpart H, titled “Container Labeling,” requires the following information or statements on certain pesticide product labels:

• A statement identifying the container as nonrefillable or refillable.

• On nonrefillable containers, statements providing basic instructions for managing the container and a batch code.

• Cleaning instructions for some nonrefillable containers.

• Cleaning instructions for refillable containers at the end of their useful lives.

In addition, the container and containment rule modified several existing requirements in 40 CFR 156.10, including allowing for blank spaces on the labels of some refillable containers for the net contents and EPA establishment number and adding a reference to the container and containment regulations in 40 CFR part 156 subpart H.

The 2008 rule that amended the container and containment rule by extending the original labeling compliance date to August 16, 2010, also changed the phrase “sold or distributed” to “released for shipment” as associated with all of the compliance dates and made several other changes to the label requirements and various minor editorial changes.

EPA is amending the container and containment regulations to provide a 4-month extension of the 40 CFR 156.159 labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010. This change is being made to allow more time for the Agency to propose and solicit comments on the consideration of a 1-year extension to address concerns raised by stakeholders and as a result of further Agency consideration.

Accomplishing the label amendments required in 40 CFR part 156 subpart H is a multistep process. Registrants must identify the changes appropriate for their particular products and apply to EPA for an amended registration. EPA must review the proposed changes and determine whether they are consistent with the regulations, and advise the registrant of the Agency's findings. If the EPA approves the changes, the registrant must then seek approval of the various state pesticide regulatory agencies. Upon approval of the state agencies, the registrant must have the new labels printed and applied to its products.

In March 2010, EPA was contacted by stakeholders with concerns about being able to have all labels changed by the label compliance date of August 16, 2010. Some registrants have asserted that they will not have sufficient time to change all labels for pesticides that are released for shipment after August 16, 2010 despite efforts by registrants, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and state agencies. The time constraints are due to several factors, including:

• More antimicrobial product labels than expected require alternate rinsing instructions, rather than the standard text in the regulations. Therefore, these amendments cannot be made by notification, and require more time consuming reviews by EPA.

• EPA's position on the appropriate container-related statements(particularly rinsing and treatment of rinsate) for certain pesticides has changed over time as a result of experience with product-by-product label reviews. This has resulted in reconsideration of some decisions, and has caused some confusion in the regulated community.

• The length of time for states to review and approve labels is understood to be increasing due to the furlough days for staff in some states and staffing reductions due to budget shortfalls.

EPA has concluded that there is insufficient time to change all labels by August 2010. Since registrants can decide which registered products they wish to market at any given time, the Agency does not have a precise count of the total number of label changes that ultimately will be submitted to EPA for review. However, based upon a review of recent Agency actions and discussions with registrants, EPA estimates that the majority of label changes already have been submitted and approved. On the other hand, EPA estimates that there are at least 1,000 labels and potentially several thousand remaining pesticide product labels that EPA still needs to review. Even if all of those applications were submitted immediately, there would not be enough time for the label changes to be approved by EPA and the states, printed, and applied to all products that will be released for shipment after August 16, 2010.

Because EPA actions contributed to the large number of outstanding label changes, EPA believes that it is appropriate to extend the §156.159 compliance date by 1 year, to August 16, 2011, and has published in the Proposed Rules section of today'sFederal Registera Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public comment on such a 1-year extension. Because that rulemaking effort could not become effective before August 16, 2010, EPA is issuing this final rule providing for a 4-month extension. As discussed in Unit IV., EPA believes an additional 4 months will be sufficient to allow the proposed rule to become final and effective, and that the proposed additional year (not cumulative with the 4-month extension) will provide enough time for EPA and the states to review the label changes and for registrants to incorporate the changes into their labels, provided that all applications are submitted soon.

During this 4-month extension, pesticide registrants should continue to submit applications for label changes for their products prior to the current deadline of August 16, 2010. EPA will give priority to applications submitted prior to August 16, 2010, with the goal of processing them to allow sufficient time for the registrant to obtain state approvals of the new labeling by the revised compliance date. Applications submitted after August 16, 2010 will be processed on a non-priority basis only after all applications submitted prior to that date have been processed. Registrants should carefully consider this and the timing of their submission to ensure that they have sufficient time to obtain state approvals by the revised compliance date.

This final rule is issued pursuant to the authority given the Administrator of EPA in sections 2 through 34 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y. Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(e) and (f), grant EPA broad authority to establish standards and procedures to assure the safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA section 19(e) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the design of pesticide containers that will promote the safe storage and disposal of pesticides. FIFRA section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations prescribing procedures and standards for the removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal. FIFRA section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is contrary to the public interest, for the following reasons.

EPA is extending by 4 months the existing August 16, 2010 deadline for complying with the 40 CFR part 156 subpart H requirements that pesticide products bear label language to facilitate the safe use, refill and reuse of containers and the removal of pesticides from containers prior to their being recycled or discarded. Providing a comment period would not allow enough time to make the rule change effective before the compliance deadline. Publishing a proposed rule for comment would be contrary to the public interest because the August 16, 2010 deadline, if left unchanged, would temporarily remove from the market a significant number of pesticides important to the protection of public health and the nation's food supply, without comparable benefits to public health or the environment.

EPA had anticipated that the August 16, 2010 deadline would allow an appropriate length of time for new language to be incorporated into the labels of roughly 15,000 registered products. In order to facilitate this process, EPA has allowed expedited amendments to pesticide registrations (per 40 CFR 152.46(a)) for changes that exactly match the sample language provided in the regulation. EPA has recently become aware that a disproportionate number of the remaining products will require individualized review and approval of alternative, and often unique, label language. Moreover, a majority of the products that require individualized decisions are public health disinfectants and sanitizers, which are critical to maintaining safe and sanitary conditions in hospitals, food preparation areas, and other institutional settings. While EPA believes that the 40 CFR part 156 subpart H requirements will provide substantial benefits to public health and the environment over the long term, EPA does not believe that the public interest is served by removing these products from the market during the time necessary to approve and implement the new label language. The statutory and procedural steps required for full notice and comment rulemaking under FIFRA could not be completed before the August 16, 2010 compliance date. Therefore, EPA is issuing this final rule to extend the compliance date by 4 months to give the Agency time to complete the notice and public comment procedure, which EPA is initiating with the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is published in the Proposed Rules section of today'sFederal Register.

This final rule only amends an existing regulation to extend the current compliance date, it does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements. As such, this action is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, entitledRegulatory Planning and Review(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose or change any informationcollection burden that requires additional review by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.). The information collection activities contained in the regulations are already approved under OMB control number 2070-0133 (EPA ICR No. 1632). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute as stated in Unit IV. of this preamble, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitledConsultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitledFederalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

Since this action is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitledProtection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and 13211,Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

This rule does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898, entitledFederal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the existing regulations is discussed in the August 16, 2006 and October 29, 2008Federal Registerdocuments.

As provided in FIFRA section 25(a)(2) and (d), the Secretary of Agriculture and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived review of this final rule. Also in accordance with FIFRA section 25(a), the Agency transmitted this final rule to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 theFederal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Any pesticide product released for shipment by a registrant after December 16, 2010 must bear a label that complies with §§ 156.10(d)(7), 156.10(f), 156.10(i)(2)(ix), 156.140, 156.144, 156.146 and 156.156.

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because this is a noncontroversial action and EPA anticipates no adverse comment. The sites have been used as EPA intended and as described in the preamble to theFederal Registerand in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) and the typographical error was only brought to EPA's attention in late April 2010. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of thisFederal Register,we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to allow EPA to withdraw this final rule and respond to comments on this action if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule,seetheADDRESSESsection of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerinforming the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. EPA's action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of the Coos Bay, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be most affected by this action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

In 1986, the Regional Administrator designated three disposal sites (Site E, original Site F and Site H) off of Coos Bay, Oregon under the MPRSA. Original Site F began to experience mounding and the Corps selected a 103 Site F to enable the three Coos Sites to accommodate the total volume of dredged material generated on an annual basis. The Corps intended to seek designation of the 103 site as soon as reasonable, however, the 103 Site F was too small for 102 designation by EPA. Consequently EPA proposed a new Site F on March 31, 2000, which was larger than the 103 site. In that proposal, EPA also proposed to de-designate the original Site F. EPA published a final rule, 71 FR 27396 (May 11, 2006), to de-designate original Site F and to designate new Site F. Figure 1, below, shows all of the Coos Sites, including Sites E and H, the de-designated Site F, the 103 configured Site F and the new Site F. The new Site F was designed to ensure that disposal of dredged material into Site F would be managed to retain material in the active littoral drift area to augment shoreline building processes and to allow material placed in the corner of the site closest to the jetty to continue augmentation toward the nearshore and toward the North Jetty. The coordinates (North American Datum—NAD 83) for new Site F, as finalized in the Final Rule preamble, were:

These coordinates were the coordinates used in the final Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Coos Sites. These coordinates were to be codified at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(3). However, a typographical error in the final rule mistakenly allowed the coordinates to be codified at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(4). This typographical error led to the result on paper, but not in practice, of leaving the Original Site F coordinates unchanged and inadvertently overwriting the coordinates for Site H. The error did not result in any disposal taking place at any of the Coos Sites in locations not described in the rule preambles or in the SMMP. The error itself was not discovered until late April 2010. At all times, disposals of dredged material suitable for ocean disposal at the Coos Sites took place in the Sites as described in the preamble to the Final Rule, 71 FR 27396 (May 11, 2006), and in the final SMMP for the Coos Sites.

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is aware of that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization,etc.,is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in this final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are 15 cents/page.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's final rule will also be available on the Internet. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this document will be posted athttp://www.epa.gov/hwcmact.This Web site also provides other information related to the NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

This regulation is promulgated under the authority of sections 1004 and 2002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6903 and 6912.

This rule withdraws the conditional exclusion from regulation under subtitle C of RCRA for Emission Comparable Fuel, as codified at § 261.38.1 The conditional exclusion stated that hazardous secondary materials that meet all of the hazardous constituent specifications applicable to comparable fuel, except concentration limits for oxygenates and hydrocarbons, and that are stored and burned under prescribed conditions, are not discarded and, thus, are not solid wastes. The fundamental premise of the ECF rule is that ECF is no more hazardous than burning fuel oil, because combustion of this material will have comparable emissions. However, to ensure that the material does not pose greater risks, EPA felt compelled to promulgate a very detailed set of conditions—the equivalent of a detailed regulatory scheme—for both the storage and combustion of ECF. As discussed in the proposed rule, (Withdrawal of the ECF Exclusion Proposed Rule (74 FR 64643, December 8, 2009)), the existing subtitle C permitting process provides for the necessary review on the operation of the combustion units and the storage units to assure that the appropriate storage and combustion conditions are met.

This rule does not affect the exclusions for comparable fuel and synthesis gas fuel that were promulgated in 19982 (also codified in § 261.38). In addition, this rule does not affect the clarifications and revisions to the conditions for comparable fuel that EPA promulgated concurrently with the ECF exclusion.3

Entities that generate, burn, and store ECF would be potentially affected by this final rule. The rationale for the exclusion was that ECF is not a solid (and hazardous) waste as generated, and hence is not subject to the subtitle C regulations. Under today's rule, ECF is again classified as a hazardous waste, and all entities managing such hazardous secondary materials are again subject to all applicable subtitle C hazardous waste standards. Since the ECF exclusion was promulgated in December 2008 and became effective in January 2009, and since we are not aware that any States have adopted or applied for authorization for this rule, we would expect that very few facilities, if any, were managing hazardous secondary materials pursuant to this rule.

On December 8, 2009, EPA proposed to withdraw the conditional exclusion for ECF under 261.38, including the exclusion itself in § 261.38(a), the specifications and associated conditions applicable to ECF under § 261.38(a), the implementation conditions applicable to ECF under § 261.38(b), the storage and burning conditions for ECF under § 261.38(c), the provisions for failure to comply with the conditions for the ECF exclusion under § 261.38(d)(2), the alternative storage conditions for ECF under § 261.38(e), and the notification of closure of an ECF storage unit under § 261.38(f). EPA received no major comments on the proposed rule to withdraw the ECF exclusion, and therefore today's action makes final, with no changes, the withdrawal of the conditional exclusion for ECF under § 261.38, as previously described. (The one comment that EPA received on the proposal, along with EPA's response to the comment are contained in the docket to today's final rule.) Information on the intent and rationale of the exclusion can be found in the Withdrawal of the ECF Exclusion Proposed Rule (74 FR 64643, December 8, 2009) and is part of the record for this final rule.

As noted above, this rule does not affect the exclusions for comparable fuel or synthesis gas fuel, including the specifications and associated conditions for these materials under § 261.38(a), the implementation conditions applicable to these materials under § 261.38(b), and the provision for failure to comply with the conditions for exclusion of these materials under § 261.38(d)(1).

Finally, today's final rule does not affect the clarifications and revisions to the conditions for comparable fuel that EPA promulgated concurrently with the ECF exclusion; specifically: (1) Clarification that comparable fuel that is spilled or leaked and that no longer meets the conditions of the exclusion must be managed as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic or if it is otherwise a listed hazardous waste (§ 261.38(b)(15)); (2) clarification that comparable fuel tank systems and container storage units become subject to the RCRA hazardous waste facility standards if not cleaned of liquids and accumulated solids within 90 days of ceasing operations as a comparable fuel storage unit (§ 261.38(b)(13)); (3) waiver of the RCRA closure requirements for tank systems and container storage units that were used only to store hazardous wastes that are subsequently excluded as comparable fuel (§ 261.38(b)(14)); (4) clarification that boiler residues, including bottom ash and emission control residue, from burning comparable fuel would be subject to regulation as hazardous waste if they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (§ 261.38(b)(12)); and (5) a condition4 requiring that the one-time notice by the generator to regulatory officials must include an estimate of the average and maximum monthly and annual quantity of comparable fuel for which an exclusion is claimed (§ 261.38(b)(2)(i)(A)).

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program within the State. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for State authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.

Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the Federal program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities in that State, since only the State was authorized to issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent Federal requirements were promulgated, the State was obligated to enact equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the State adopted the Federal requirements as State law.

In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA authority take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. EPA is directed by the statute to implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA related provisions as State law to retain final authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized States until the States do so.

Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program (see also40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized States may, but are not required to, adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent than previous Federal regulations.

By removing the ECF provisions, while maintaining the more stringent conditions applicable to comparable fuel in today's notice, it leads to final regulations that are considered to be more stringent than the current requirements; these provisions were not promulgated under the authority of HSWA. Therefore, States that have adopted the exclusion are required to modify their programs to remove the exclusion for ECF because they must conform to Federal regulations that are more stringent than the authorized State regulations. States that adopted the comparable fuel exclusion promulgated on June 19, 1998 and codified at § 261.38, but that have not adopted the ECF exclusion, will still need to revise their programs to adopt the more stringent conditions applicable to comparable fuel (see73 FR at 77963-64) that were promulgated concurrently with the ECF exclusion on December 19, 2008.

Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA's State authorization regulations (40 CFR part 271) requires that States with final authorization modify their programs to reflect Federal program changes and submit the modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the States will need to modify their programs is determined by the date of promulgation of a final rule in accordance with § 271.21(e)(2). Once EPA approves the modification, the State requirements would become RCRA subtitle C requirements.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. Our impact assessment5 suggests that lost benefits would be, at most, $6.6 million per year. If fewer States were to have adopted the December 2008 exclusion rule, the value of lost benefits would be smaller.

The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1361.15. Withdrawing the ECF exclusion will result in an increase in the reporting and recordkeeping burden for ECF generators and burners, back to the level prior to promulgation of the exclusion. That is, under the ECF conditional exclusion, because ECF was no longer classified as a hazardous waste, the generator and burner were not required to comply with the paperwork, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements under the subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. However, ECF generators and burners were subject to an annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information required under the conditional exclusion. Thus, overall, the reporting and recordkeeping burden for ECF generators and burners resulted in a net annual reduction of 32,900 hours (assuming that all authorized States adopted the rule, which has not occurred) and a savings of $1.3 million in capital and operation and maintenance costs (based on the same assumption). Therefore, withdrawing the ECF conditional exclusion will result in a reporting and recordkeeping burden of 32,900 hours and a cost of $1.3 million in capital, and operation and maintenance costs, again assuming full adoption by authorized States. However, since we believe this has not occurred, the new burden would be significantly less. If authorized States have not adopted the rule, withdrawing the ECF conditional exclusion will not change the reporting and recordkeeping burden from what existed prior to promulgation of the conditional exclusion. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR 261.38 under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act,44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0073. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). EPA has established a public docket for this final rule, which includes the ICR prepared in support of the final action. The Docket ID number is EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0017.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:(1) A small business, as defined by Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are facilities that generate, burn on-site, and store ECF. We have determined that the affected ECF generators are not owned by small governmental jurisdictions or nonprofit organizations. Therefore, only small businesses were analyzed for small entity impacts. A small entity is defined either by the number of employees or by the dollar amount of sales. The level at which a business is considered small is determined for each North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code by the Small Business Administration.

We have determined that this final rule is projected to result in increased costs to companies that may have started to use the conditional exclusion, as identified in the ECF Final Rule, although we suspect that very few facilities, if any, have actually begun to comply with this rule. However, any cost impacts to potentially affected small entities are not expected to be significant. The May 14, 2008 economic assessment6 identified 34 facilities projected to take advantage of the ECF final rule (seeAppendix E to the economic assessment document). Based on the corporate ownership of these facilities, one facility was confirmed as a small business based on the Small Business Administration size standards.7 The size category of one other facility was undetermined. All other facilities were found to be owned by large businesses or the Federal government (e.g.,DOE). For the one identified small business and the one of undetermined size, impacts to these companies was estimated to be up to a maximum of one percent of gross annual revenues. This impact estimate was based on the average annual gross revenues for the NAICS category (2002 Census data) and the average cost savings per generator, as reported in Exhibit 15 of the revised assessment.8 This impact finding assumes both “small businesses” have fully implemented the ECF final rule and would therefore experience cost increases as a result of this withdrawal. However, as discussed above, we suspect that very few facilities, if any, have begun to comply with this rule.

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Total annual cost impacts of this action are not expected to exceed $6.6 million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Nosmall governments are known to own or manage any of the potentially affected entities.

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This rulemaking primarily and directly affects generators and burners of ECF. There are no State and local government bodies that would incur direct compliance costs by this rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.

This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from Tribal officials. No comments were received.

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this final rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the original document(s) that established these materials as hazardous waste.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Because EPA is withdrawing the conditional exclusion for ECF under § 261.38, EPA is not using any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This action reverses the ECF final rule thereby reinstating the more stringent management requirements for these materials.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et 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 rule 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 theFederal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register.This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective June 15, 2010.

EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Site. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective August 16, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 15, 2010. Along with this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the “Proposed Rules” section of theFederal Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and the partial deletion will not take effect. EPA, will as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete the Site parcels from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site will not require five-year reviews. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to the deletion of the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site:

1. EPA has consulted with the state of Texas prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion co-published in the “Proposed Rules” section of theFederal Register.

2. EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent forPartial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has concurred on this partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.

3. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the Houston Chronicle. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

4. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

5. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL. A map of the Site, including the aerial extent of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying 8 acres of ground water proposed for deletion, is available in the deletion docket.

The Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site (Site, CERCLIS ID—TXD008083404), a former foundry (Operable Unit 1), occupied a 36-acre tract of land located at 3617 Baer Street in Houston, Texas (Harris County). The Site also consists of the residential areas (off-site soils of Operable Units 2 and 3) surrounding the former foundry. Figures, with coordinates, of the areas to be deleted will be made available at the Site information repositories and included with the deletion docket. The Site is located approximately two miles east of downtown Houston and one block south of Interstate Highway 10 in an area of mixed industrial and residential land use. This part of Houston is known as the “Fifth Ward.” The Site is bordered by Hare Street to the north, National Vinegar Company and Press Street to the east, the former Texas New Orleans railroad right-of-way to the south, and Bringhurst Street to the west. Operable Units 2 and 3 include the residential yards and “high access areas” (e.g.,schools, day care centers, playgrounds, churches, etc.) surrounding the former foundry.

Operations at the metal casting foundry began in 1926. The facility primarily manufactured specialty molded parts such as large wheels, tracks, and mining equipment. The process area consisted of two casting plants. Various grades of steel, including high carbon, chrome, molybdenum, high nickel, and stainless steel were cast at the facility. Scrap metal and iron were melted in the carbon arc furnaces, tested, corrected for the elements needed for the different grades of steel, and poured into molds. Molds and cores were constructed by mixing sand with flour binders. Castings were cleaned (by mechanical grinding, shot blasting, or sandblasting) and heat-treated. Final machining was performed either at the site or the customer's shop, if needed.

During the mid-1980s, the southern portion of the Site was leased to Can-Am Resource Group (Can-Am). Can-Am conducted a spent catalyst recycling operation using an experimental process. Catalyst is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction to create a desirable product, such as gasoline for vehicles or other usable products. Can-Am reportedly obtained several thousand drums of spent catalyst from chemical plants and refineries located along the Houston Ship Channel and stored them at the Site.

The EPA believes that the air emissions from the operations of the former foundry, which contained particles of lead, may have caused the on-site (Operable Unit 1) and off-site (Operable Units 2 and 3) soils to become contaminated through the air deposition of these particles. Foundry practices may have also contributed to the on-site lead contamination of the soils. Other probable sources of lead contamination that may have impacted the on- and off-site soils may include lead-based paint and historical deposition from vehicular lead-based fuel emissions, among other possible sources. The leaking drums of spent catalyst from chemical plants and refineries, stored at the Site by Can-Am, also caused the soils to become contaminated, posing a threat to the residential areas of the Site.

The EPA organized the Site into Operable Units 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water), 2 (Off-Site Residential Yards and High Access Areas), and 3 (Residential Crawlspaces and Those Residential Areas Not Addressed Under Operable Unit 2) as discrete actions that address the distinct geographical portions and the different media (on-site soils and ground water, and off-site residential yard and crawlspace soils) affected by the Site. The soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 are the subject of this direct notice for partial deletion.

Operable Unit 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water) consists of the soils and ground water within the fenced boundaries of the former foundry.

In September 1998, EPA issued an action memorandum to address the removal of approximately 5,355 deteriorating drums of waste from the Site and 100,000 yd3of contaminated on-site soils. In May 1999, EPA issued unilateral administrative orders directing the potentially responsible parties to conduct a removal action to address the drummed wastes at the Site.

The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 was made available for public comment on February 1, 2004. The Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1, which identified the Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 1, was issued on July 30, 2004. In September 2006, EPA and Clinton Gregg Investments, Ltd. (CGI) entered into an “Agreed Order on Consent and Covenant Not to Sue.” This is the first-ever agreement in the nation by a non-liable party to clean up a Superfund Site. The purchaser of the former foundry property (Operable Unit 1) agreed to implement and fund the Selected Remedy. Partial deletion of the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of theapproximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Site was requested by CGI to facilitate the residential development of the Site.

Operable Unit 2 (Off-Site Residential Yards and High Access Areas) consists of the residential yards and high access areas surrounding the fenced boundaries of the former foundry (Operable Unit 1). In 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) performed a removal action that addressed 89 residential yards, contaminated with lead, in the vicinity of the Site. In November 2003 and June 2005, EPA completed removal actions at 59 residential yards and high access areas, which included the Blanche Kelso Bruce Elementary School, Fifth Ward Multi-Service Center, and several churches. The purpose of these removal actions was to remove surface soil with concentrations of lead that equaled or exceeded the cleanup goal of 500 mg/kg to reduce the exposure of children and adults to lead. EPA believes that these removal actions addressed all of the residential yards and High Access Areas that could have been affected by the air emissions of particulates containing lead from the former foundry and for which access was granted for sampling.

The ground water medium was not a component of the investigation for Operable Unit 2. The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2 was made available for public comment on July 28, 2005. The Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2, which identified the Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 2, was issued on September 23, 2005. The Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 2 was “no further action” since the previous removal actions eliminated the existing and potential risks to human health and the environment so that no further action was necessary. Operable Unit 2 is not being considered for partial deletion at this time and is not discussed further in this direct notice of partial deletion.

Operable Unit 3 (Off-Site Residential Crawlspaces and Those Residential Areas Not Addressed Under Operable Unit 2) consists of the residential crawlspaces and yards surrounding the fenced boundaries of the former foundry (Operable Unit 1) which were not addressed under Operable Unit 2 because the owners could not be located, or they were not responsive to the EPA's request for sampling, or they denied the EPA access for sampling.

In April 2006 and 2009, the EPA completed removal actions at the northeastern portion of the Kelly Village Housing Complex and six (6) additional residential yards of the Site, respectively. The purpose of these removal actions was to remove surface soil with concentrations of lead that equaled or exceeded the cleanup goal of 500 mg/kg to reduce the exposure of children and adults to lead. EPA believes that these removal actions addressed all of the Kelly Village areas and surrounding residential yards which could have been affected by the air emissions of particulates containing lead from the former foundry and for which the EPA was granted access for sampling.

The ground water medium was not a component of the investigation for Operable Unit 3. The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 3 was made available for public comment in June 2009. The Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3, which identified the Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 3, was issued on August 31, 2009. The Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 3 crawlspaces was “no action warranted” since the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment concluded that current or potential future Site conditions pose no unacceptable risks to human health or to the environment so that no action is warranted. The Selected Remedy Operable Unit 3 residential yards was “no further action” since the previous removal actions eliminated the existing and potential risks to human health and the environment so that no further action was necessary. Operable Unit 3 is not being considered for partial deletion at this time and is not discussed further in this direct notice of partial deletion.

The remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 addressed the following key issues in order to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site:

• Determine the distribution of metal concentrations in near-surface soils (specifically lead deposited as a result of air dispersion and deposition of emissions from the former foundry),

• Determine the nature and extent of contaminants of potential concern in soils associated with the historic foundry operations at the Site, and

• Determine the nature and extent of contamination in ground water at the Site (Operable Unit 1).

The contaminant found above risk-based levels in the soils included lead. The contaminants found above risk-based levels in the ground water included benzo(a)pyrene, total petroleum hydrocarbons, manganese, and molybdenum. A total of five alternatives were developed for the Site during the feasibility study for Operable Unit 1. The EPA chose stabilization/solidification of lead-contaminated soils with off-site disposal, source removal and monitored natural attenuation for the ground water, and the placement of institutional controls for both the soils and ground water as the Selected Remedy for the Site.

The major components of the Selected Remedy described in the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water) for the Site consisted of:

• Excavation and Treatment (solidification/stabilization, if necessary) of approximately 13,600 cubic yards (yd3) of soils with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to a maximum depth of 1.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), and approximately 3,000 yd3of soils stockpiled at the Site from a previous removal action were also treated, if necessary. Transportation and Disposal (at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility) of the treated and untreated soils;

• Transportation and Disposal (at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility) of approximately 31,621 yd3of debris (nonhazardous debris, foundry sand, and slag), the Asbestos-Containing Material in the on-site building and scattered throughout the Site, and an Underground Storage Tank in the vicinity of Monitoring Well (MW) 20;

• Excavation and Disposal (at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility) of approximately 2,100 yd3of soils contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene, or other organics, at the MW-3 location; light nonaqueous-phase liquids at the MW-11 location; and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons at the MW-20 location. Soil cleanup levels for these isolated source areas were determined during the remedial design and remedial action for the Selected Remedy;

• Implementation of Monitored Natural Attenuation for the ground water, which included source removal and Long-Term Monitoring for the ground water to ensure that constituents (total petroleum hydrocarbons and benzo[a]pyrene) above cleanup goals are naturally attenuating; and

• Implementation of Institutional Controls for both the soils and groundwater to prevent exposure to soil contamination above acceptable cleanup levels and to prevent exposure to contaminated ground water in the shallow water-bearing zone.

The Remedial Action Objectives accomplished for Operable Unit 1 of the Site were:

• Remove the asbestos-containing material stockpiled on the Site and left in the existing building,

• Reduce the risk posed to residential receptors by lead concentrations in the soils equal to or greater than the cleanup goal for the Site (500 mg/kg),

• Remove soil visibly contaminated with waste oil in the vicinity of MW-3 and MW-20 that was acting as a potential continuing source of ground water contamination,

• Remove soil visibly contaminated with waste oil in the vicinity of MW-11 that has the potential to act as a source of ground water contamination,

• Remediate ground water in the northwest corner of the Site, at MW-20, and remove the free product associated with an underground storage tank, and

• Mitigate the threat posed by exposure to ground water throughout the rest of the Site.

The remedial design for Operable Unit 1 included the following design determinations:

• Defining the lead removal and sampling techniques (including confirmation sampling);

• Detailing a lead-impacted soil treatment process;

• Determining source removal criteria for light nonaqueous phase liquid-impacted areas,

• Defining the disposal/sampling needs for each waste stream, and

• Defining the monitoring wells for the monitored natural attenuation program.

The remedial action for Operable Unit 1 included:

• Demolition and disposal of an abandoned 2-story office building, and several 1-story utility structures;

• Transportation and disposal of the asbestos-containing material in the on-site building and scattered throughout the Site;

• Transportation and disposal (at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility) of approximately 31,621 yd3of debris (non-hazardous debris, foundry sand, and slag) and the asbestos-containing material in the on-site building and scattered throughout the Site;

• Removal and disposal of an electrical transformer, and underground storage tank in the vicinity of MW-20 and Lead Area 1, and the management and disposal of foundry bag filters identified as a listed K061 waste material;

• Excavation and treatment (solidification/stabilization, if necessary) of approximately 13,600 yd3of soils with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500 mg/kg to a maximum depth of 1.5 feet bgs and approximately 3,000 yd3of soils stockpiled at the Site from a previous removal action, and transportation and disposal (at a permitted off-site wastes disposal facility) of the treated and untreated soils;

• Excavation and disposal (at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility) of approximately 2,100 yd3of soils contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene, or other organics, at the MW-11 location, and total petroleum hydrocarbons at the MW-20 location;

• Confirmation sampling for several locations identified to have been impacted by either semi-volatile organic compounds or polychlorinated biphenyls in the soils; and lead confirmation sampling for the Site soils;

• Installation of additional monitoring wells to be utilized during the monitored natural attenuation program.

Soil remedial action activities were conducted at Operable Unit 1 from May 2007 through June 2008. The soil remedial action for Operable Unit 1 of the Site consisted of the sampling and excavation, including the proper disposal, of the soils contaminated with lead equal to or greater than the 500 mg/kg residential soil lead cleanup level specified in the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1. The soil remedial action also consisted of the sampling and excavation of soils contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons and other organics identified in the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1. Confirmation sampling was also conducted to verify that this area did not contain soil with lead or organic concentrations (total petroleum hydrocarbons, benzo(a)pyrene, and polychlorinated biphenyls) equal to or greater than the cleanup level. Institutional controls were not required for the soils since sampling indicated that soil lead concentrations did not exceed the cleanup level below 1.5 feet bgs. Sampling data gathered from the ground water monitoring wells located in the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 indicated that the underlying ground water had not been impacted by the hazardous substances identified in the Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 1 of the Site. The ground water flows to the east southeast at this portion of the Site and the contaminants are not expected to contaminate the ground water underlying the 8-acre western portion of the Site. Therefore, EPA determined that the ground water underlying the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 would not require institutional controls.

The EPA conducted pre-final and final construction inspections for Operable Unit 1 on June 25, 2008, and determined that CGI completed the Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 1 in accordance with the remedial design plans and specifications, the remedial action sampling and analysis plan, the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1, and the Agreed Order on Consent. The EPA approved the “Final Soil Remedial Action Report” (dated 08/29/08) on December 12, 2008, and issued a final certification of completion of the soil remedial action on August 19, 2009.

Since all the contaminants were remediated in the Operable Unit 1 soils, and monitoring data indicated that the ground water underlying the 8-acre western portion of the Site was not contaminated, no operation and maintenance, monitoring, or five-year reviews are required.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the partial deletion docket which the EPA relied on for recommendation for the partial deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion has been published in the Houston Chronicle to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4).

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response isappropriate. The EPA, in consultation with the State of Texas (through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), has determined that the potentially responsible parties have completed the removal action for Operable Unit 1 according to the May 1999 “Unilateral Administrative Order,” and that Clinton Gregg Investments, Ltd. has completed the soil remedial action for Operable Unit 1 according to the July 2004 “Record of Decision” and the September 2006 “Agreed Order on Consent and Covenant Not to Sue.” Additionally, EPA completed the removal action at Operable Unit 1 according to the September 1998 “Action Memorandum.”

The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the soils of Operable Unit 1 and the underlying ground water of the approximately 8-acre western portion of Operable Unit 1 of the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective August 16, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 15, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of partial deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

This is a summary of the Commission'sBroadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service Third Report and Order(BRS/EBS 3rd RO), FCC 10-107, adopted on June 1, 2010, and released on June 3, 2010. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300or 1-800-378-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site:http://www.bcpiweb.com.When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 10-107. The complete text of this document is also available on the Commission's Web site athttp://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-10-107A1doc.This full text may also be downloaded at:http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html.Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail tobmillin@fcc.gov.

In rule document 2010-13207 beginning on page 30732 in the issue of Wednesday, June 2, 2010 make the following correction:

On page 30734, Table 1 is being reprinted to read as set forth below.

This document announces that based on the best available information recently obtained from the fishery and information on past effort, the directed fishing harvest allocation for the first allocation period (January 1-June 30) will be reached and therefore directed fishing for Pacific sardine is being closed until July 1, 2010. Fishing vessels must be at shore and in the process of offloading at the time of closure. From 12:01 am on the date of closure through June 30, 2010, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of the live bait fishery or incidental to other fisheries, with the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine limited to 30-percent by weight of all fish caught during a trip.

NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Annual specifications published in theFederal Registerestablish the harvest guideline (HG) and allowable harvest levels for each Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1 - December 31). If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, only incidental harvest is allowed and, for the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings will be counted against that period's incidental set aside. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, all fisheries will be closed to the retention of Pacific sardine for the remainder of the period via appropriate rulemaking.

Under 50 CFR 660.509, if the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, NMFS is required to close the Pacific sardine fishery via appropriate rulemaking and it is to remain closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. In accordance with § 660.509 the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in theFederal Registerannouncing the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine.

The above in-season harvest restrictions are not intended to affect the prosecution of the live bait portion of the Pacific sardine fishery.

This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for the closure of the directed harvest of Pacific sardine. For the reasons set forth below, notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. This measure responds to the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. A delay in effectiveness would cause the fishery to exceed the in-season harvest level. These seasonal harvest levels are important mechanisms in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. The established directed and incidental harvest allocations are designed to allow fair and equitable opportunity to the resource by all sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery and to allow access to other profitable CPS fisheries, such as squid and Pacific mackerel.

Many of the same fishermen who harvest Pacific sardine rely on these other fisheries for a significant portion of their income.