The NRC is amending its regulations at Title 10 of theCode of Federal Regulations(10 CFR) parts 2, 10, 20, 25, 26, 30, 34, 40, 50, 54, 70, 71, 72, 95, 110, and 150 to make miscellaneous administrative changes, including an update of the list of Agreement and Non-Agreement States, the merging of the Region II materials program with that of Region I, the correction of office titles associated with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, the inclusion of references to new E.O. 13526, and other edits, corrections, and conforming changes.

In § 2.390(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(1)(i)(B), the language is revised to include electronic watermarks to denote proprietary content. Current regulations at § 2.390(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(1)(i)(B) currently require proprietary marking at the top of the first page, and on succeeding, affected pages, either adjacent to the material sought to be withheld from public disclosure, or at the top of the page, if the entire page is sought to be withheld. At the time the regulations were written, information technology alternatives, such as electronic watermarks, were not in common use, if the technology was available at all. Various alternatives such as electronic watermark, margin notation, or other suitable markings may now be available to denote proprietary content, and would be acceptable as being completely within the spirit of the regulations, since the goal of the regulations is simply to ensure that there is notice of proprietary content to whoever is handling the document and not to be unnecessarily prescriptive, either as to methodology or terminology.

In §§ 30.6(b)(2)(i), 40.5(b)(2)(i), and 70.5(b)(2)(i), Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey no longer appear because they are Agreement States. In §§ 30.6(b)(2)(iii)(B), 40.5(b)(2)(iii)(B), and 70.5(b)(2)(iii)(B), Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota no longer appear because they are Agreement States and in §§ 30.6(b)(2)(iv)(B), 40.5(b)(2)(iv)(B), and 70.5(b)(2)(iv)(B), Oklahoma no longer appears because it is an Agreement State.

In §§ 30.6(b)(2)(iii)(A), 40.5(b)(2)(iii)(A), and 70.5(b)(2)(iii)(A), Illinois and Ohio are now properly identified as mining and milling Agreement States and in §§ 30.6(b)(2)(iv)(A), 40.5(b)(2)(iv)(A), and 70.5(b)(2)(iv)(A), Colorado, Utah, Texas and Washington are also identified as mining and milling Agreement States. This addition was made to highlight those Agreements States who selected oversight authority concerning this type of regulation.

The contact information for material licensees has been updated in §§ 30.6(b)(2)(ii), 40.5(b)(2)(ii), 70.5(b)(2)(ii) to reflect Region I because Region II's materials program has been merged into that of Region I.

Sections 30.37, 40.43, and 70.33 are revised to remove obsolete text, contained in paragraph (b) of each section, that is related to a final rule published on January 16, 1996 (61 FR1109). The final rule provided, on a one-time basis, a five-year extension for certain licenses. Those license extensions are now expired.

The office title “Spent Fuel Project Office” is corrected to “Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation” in §§ 71.1, 71.17(c)(3), 71.95(c), 71.101(c), 72.4, 72.16(a), 72.44(f), and 72.186(b).

Section 71.97(c)(3)(iii) is revised to change the office title from “Office of State Programs” to “Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs”.

In a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute on April 16, 2008 (PRM-70-8; Docket ID NRC-2009-0184), the petitioner requested removal of the exemption in the introductory text to Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 because this exemption expired on October 18, 2004. The NRC agrees with the petitioner and the text is removed.

In the second table that appears in Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20, the heading for the second column of Table 1 which reads “μCi/ml” is corrected to read “μCi”.

In § 26.4(a)(5), the term “watchperson” is replaced with the defined term “watchman”.

In § 50.70(b)(3), the spelling of the word “measures” is corrected.

In § 34.8(b), the reference to § 34.53 is removed because it does not contain any information collections. In § 71.6(b), the reference to § 71.20 is removed because the information collection in that section has expired.

In § 50.56, a comma is added after the word “contrary”.

In § 150.10, the reference to § 150.18 is removed because that section does not exist.

In § 150.17(b), the name “NUREG/BR-007” is corrected to read “NUREG/BR-0007”.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12958 was revoked and replaced with E.O. 13526 in early 2010. References were corrected to E.O. 13526 in the authority citations to 10 CFR parts 25, 54, and 95; definitions in §§ 10.5, 25.5, 95.5, and 110.2; and §§ 25.37(b) and 95.59.

Conforming changes to refer to “review procedure” are made in § 26.39. Conforming changes to refer to individuals “constructing or directing the construction of safety- or security-related SSCs” are made in §§ 26.403(b)(2)(ii), 26.403(b)(3), 26.405(c)(1), 26.406(b), 26.406(d), 26.407 and 26.409. An incorrect reference to operators licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 is removed from the introductory text of § 26.719(b)(2).

Because these amendments constitute minor administrative corrections to the regulations, the Commission finds that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are unnecessary and is exercising its authority under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to publish these amendments as a final rule. The amendments are effective 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2), which excludes from a major action rules which are corrective or of a minor non-policy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

This final rule does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this final rule; therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments are administrative in nature and do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I, or be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.

Under the CRA 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 of OMB.

DOE received numerous comments in response to the notice of the Hanford Challenge petition for rulemaking, published on October 16, 2009. 74 FR 53190. The vast majority of those comments recommended denial of the petition, for two reasons. First, DOE already has numerous regulations in place to protect and encourage employees to raise work-related concerns. Second, not only would instituting a “Safety-Conscious Work Environment” by regulation be redundant, but it would also fail to add any additional protections not already in place. The comments DOE received in favor of the petition were generally related to the existing culture of safety and whistleblower protection. The main concern in these comments was that DOE facilities would be unsafe without an environment where employees could raise concerns without fear of retaliation or reprisal.

After reviewing the existing protections, DOE agrees with the majority of the comments that granting the petition for rulemaking would be unnecessary. Currently, employee protection and safety programs exist in the following statutory and regulatory authorities: 42 U.S.C. 5851, 10 CFR part 708, 10 CFR part 851, 29 CFR 1960.28, 48 CFR 970.0309, and 29 CFR part 24, as well as numerous internal DOE orders and directives including DOE's Employee Concerns Program (DOE Order 442.1A) and Differing Professional Opinions Manual (DOE Manual 442.1-1). These authorities provide sufficient guidance and protections in which employees can properly raise concerns that will be promptly reviewed and appropriately resolved with timely feedback.

DOE denies the petition for rulemaking because the existing regulations provide legal protection to employees while adequately promoting worker involvement in raising and resolving concerns. Implementing the “Safety-Conscious Work Environment” would be redundant and would fail to add any substantive protections not currently in place. While the petitioner believes that the existing regulations are inadequate, neither DOE's internal review nor the comments submitted in response to the petition demonstrate that to be the case.

Nevertheless, DOE recognizes that the existing authorities governing safety and employee protection programs can be diverse and confusing. In an attempt to provide as much clarity on this issue as possible, DOE has created a Web site summarizing the existing law and providing a central location consolidating all the relevant standards on this issue. This Web site can be accessed at:http://www.gc.energy.gov/1630.htm. The Department believes that this Web site will increase awareness of the existing protections for DOE employees and DOE contractors and will address the underlying concerns evident in the Hanford Challenge petition for rulemaking and the comments in support thereof.

Section 12(i) of the Exchange Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78l(i)), authorizes the FDIC to issue regulations applicable to the securities of state nonmember banks that are substantially similar to those of the SEC with respect to its powers, functions, and duties to administer and enforce sections 10A(m) (standards relating to audit committees), 12 (securities registration), 13 (periodic reporting), 14(a) (proxies and proxy solicitation), 14(c) (information statements), 14(d) (tender offers), 14(f) (arrangements for changes in directors), and 16 (beneficial ownership and reporting) of the Exchange Act, and sections 302 (corporate responsibility for financial reports), 303 (improper influence on conduct of audits), 304 (forfeiture of certain bonuses and profits), 306 (insider trades during blackout periods), 401(b) (disclosure of pro forma financial information), 404 (management assessment of internal controls), 406 (code of ethics for senior financial officers), and 407 (disclosure of audit committee financial expert) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7261, 7262, 7264, and 7265). These regulations must be substantially similar to the regulations of the SEC under the listed sections of the Exchange Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, unless the FDIC publishes its reasons for deviating from the SEC's rules. The proposed amendments to this part provide references to titles and parts of the CFR, and eliminate references to specific CFR sections and subparts, as a general cross reference is provided in § 335.101. The elimination of CFR section and subpart references provides efficiency as regulatory revisions by the SEC impacting CFR sections and subparts will no longer require amendments to part 335 each time a CFR section and subpart is amended.

Part 335 will be amended throughout to reflect the elimination of certain references to sections and subparts of the Code of Federal Regulations that the FDIC is currently required to administer and enforce under section 12(i) of the Exchange Act, provide a general cross reference to the relevant title and part of the Code of Federal Regulations, and reflect required and voluntary electronic filing of FDIC forms. Accordingly, the following sections in part 335 will be amended, where appropriate, to remove references to specific CFR sections and subparts in the SEC's regulations that have been cross referenced in section 335.101: § 335.111 (Forms and schedules), § 335.121 (Listing standards related to audit committees), § 335.201 (Securities exempted from registration), § 335.211 (Registration and reporting), section 335.221 (Forms for registration of securities and other matters), § 335.231 (Certification, suspension of trading, and removal from listing by exchanges), § 335.241 (Unlisted trading), § 335.251 (Forms for notification of action taken by national securities exchanges), § 335.261 (Exemptions; terminations; and definitions), § 335.301 (Reports of issuers of securities registered pursuant to § 12), § 335.311 (Forms for annual, quarterly, current, and other reports of issuers), § 335.321 (Maintenance of records and issuer's representations in connection with required reports), § 335.331 (Acquisition statements, acquisition of securities by issuers, and other matters), § 335.401 (Solicitation of proxies), § 335.501 (Tender offers), § 335.601 (Requirements of section 16 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934), § 335.611 (Initial statement of beneficial ownership of securities), § 335.612 (Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities), § 335.613 (Annual statement of beneficial ownership of securities), § 335.701 (Filing requirements, public reference, and confidentiality), and § 335.801 (Inapplicable SEC regulations; FDIC substituted regulations; additional information).z

Section 335.111 (Forms and Schedules) will be amended to provide information regarding access to and the use of beneficial ownership Forms 3, 4, and 5 from the FDIC Web site.

Section 335.221 (Forms for registration of securities and other matters) will be revised to delete paragraph (c) in order to reflect amendments to SEC regulations that eliminate the optional forms for small business issuer filing requirements. To accommodate this revision, current paragraph (d), which cross references the requirements of SEC Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) (17 CFR 243.100 through 243.103), will be renamed paragraph (c).

Section 335.311 (Forms for annual, quarterly, current, and other reports of issuers) will be amended to delete references to “small business issuers” and optional forms for filing requirements in order to reflect amendments to SEC regulations that no longer provide optional forms for filing by small business issuers.

Section 335.601 (Requirements of section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), § 335.701 (Filing requirements, public reference, and confidentiality), and § 335.801 (Inapplicable SEC regulations; FDIC substituted regulations; additional information) will be amended, where applicable, to reflect the electronic filing requirements with respect to Beneficial Ownership Report Forms 3, 4, and 5 required by the Exchange Act, as amended by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The sections also will be amended to reflect the availability of voluntary electronic filing on the FDIC Web site. In addition, § 335.801 will be amended to reflect the appropriate forms for the hardship exemption from mandatory electronic filing.

Finally, the FDIC will make certain nonsubstantive changes to Part 335 to improve its clarity and readability and to correct outdated terms.

The FDIC requests comments on all aspects of the rule changes. Commenters suggesting that the FDIC modify the requirements of the SEC's rules, regulations, and forms for state nonmember banks should support their request by demonstrating how such modification would satisfy the requirements of section 12(i) of the Exchange Act.

Comments are also welcome on the general organization of Part 335.

The process of amending Part 335 by means of this Interim Rule is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when (1) the rule is interpretative or relates to an agency's rules of organization, procedure, or practice, and (2) an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Similarly, sections 553(d)(2), (3) of the APA provide that the publication of a rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except if the rule is interpretative and “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.”

Consistent with sections 553(b)(A), (B) of the APA, the FDIC finds that good cause exists for a finding that general notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary in that certain portions of part 335 that are being amended in light of the issuance of regulations by the SEC, which SEC issuances already have been subjected to public notice and request for comment. In addition, certain other changes to part 335 are organizational in nature and are exempt from the APA's general notice and public comment requirement. Accordingly, pursuant to the APA, the FDIC is foregoing the general notice and public comment requirement as to this rulemaking.

Further, immediate issuance of this Interim Rule furthers the public interest by conforming the FDIC's rules with the SEC's requirements and organizing the rule to reduce redundancies and increase readability. For these same reasons, the FDIC finds good cause to publish this Interim Rule with an immediate effective date.1

Although general notice and opportunity for public comment are not required prior to the effective date, the FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the Interim Rule, which the FDIC may revise if necessary or appropriate in light of the comments received.

The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act provides that any new regulations or amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form, unless the agency determines, for good cause published with the rule, that the rule should become effective before such time.2 For the same reasons discussed above, the FDIC finds that good cause exists for an immediate effective date for the Interim Rule.

This rule contains no new collections of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

A regulatory flexibility analysis is required only when the agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 603, 604). Because the revisions to part 335 are published in interim final form without a notice of proposed rulemaking, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determinedthat the Interim Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office as soon as it receives a determination from OMB. Nevertheless, as discussed above, consistent with section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the FDIC has determined for good cause that general notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this Interim Rule will take effect upon publication in theFederal Register.

The Tobacco Control Act was enacted on June 22, 2009, amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and providing FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products (Pub. L. 11-31; 123 Stat. 1776). In enacting the Tobacco Control Act, Congress sought to ensure that FDA had authority to provide effective oversight and to impose appropriate regulatory controls on tobacco products. In order to effectuate these purposes, FDA is amending several provisions of its general regulations to reflect the Agency's new authority and mandate regarding tobacco products.

In this direct final rule, FDA is making the following amendments to its existing general regulations, reflecting the Agency's authority over tobacco products under the Tobacco Control Act:

1. Revising 21 CFR 1.1(b) to ensure the applicability of definitions contained in the Tobacco Control Act;

2. Removing the reference to “package” in 21 CFR 1.1(c), as this definition now also is covered by the Tobacco Control Act and is no longer provided solely by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act;

3. Revising 21 CFR 1.20 to exclude from this definition of “package” the term “package” as defined in section 900(13) of the Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 387q(13));

4. Adding paragraph (f) to 21 CFR 14.55 to identify the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee as a permanent statutory advisory committee; and

5. Adding paragraph (j) to 21 CFR 17.1 and revising 21 CFR 17.2 to reflect FDA's authority to impose civil monetary penalties on tobacco-related violations.

In theFederal Registerof November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA announced the availability of the guidance document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures” that described when and how FDA will employ direct final rulemaking. We believe that this rule is appropriate for direct final rulemaking because it is intended to make noncontroversial changes to existing regulations. We anticipate no significant adverse comments.

Consistent with FDA's procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are publishing elsewhere in this issue of theFederal Registera companion proposed rule that is identical to the direct final rule. The companion proposed rule provides a procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant adverse comment. The comment period for this direct final rule runs concurrently with the comment period of the companion proposed rule. Any comments received in response to the companion proposed rule will also be considered as comments regarding this direct final rule.

We are providing a comment period on the direct final rule of 75 days after the date of publication in theFederal Register. If we receive any significant adverse comment, we intend to withdraw this final rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in theFederal Registerwithin 30 days after the comment period ends. A significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants terminating a direct final rulemaking, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. For example, a comment recommending an additional change to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.

If we withdraw the direct final rule, all comments received will be considered under the companion proposed rule in developing a final rule under the usual notice-and-comment procedures under the APA. If we receive no significant adverse comment during the specified comment period, we intend to publish a confirmation document in theFederal Registerwithin 30 days after the comment period ends.

You can find additional information about FDA's direct final rulemaking procedures in the guidance document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures” (62 FR 62466). This guidance document may be accessed athttp://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm.

FDA is issuing this direct final rule under provisions of the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 333, 387, 387a, and 387q).

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and (i) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 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 Agency believes that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this direct final rule does not impose any new requirements on tobacco product manufacturers, retailers, or distributors, the Agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $135 million, using the most current (2009) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

FDA concludes that the regulatory revisions and amendments identified in this document are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

On April 27, 2010, the Commission published in theFederal Registeran interim rule regarding the Commission's civil penalty settlement procedures. 75 FR 21987. The Commission explained that since 2006, the number of new cases filed with the Commission has dramatically increased, and that in order to deal with that burgeoning caseload, the Commission is considering methods to simplify how it processes civil penalty settlements. The interim rule became effective on May 27, 2010, and the Commission accepted comments on the rule through June 28, 2010. The Commission received comments from the Secretary of Labor (the “Secretary”) through the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor, individual Conference and Litigation Representatives (“CLRs”), and a few members of the mining community.

Under section 110(k) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(k), a proposed civil penalty that has been contested before the Commission may be settled only with the approval of the Commission. Under the Commission's practice prior to the effective date of the interim rule, a party submitted to a Commission Administrative Law Judge a motion to approve a penalty settlement that included for each violation the amount of the penalty proposed by the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties. 29 CFR 2700.31(b) (2009). A Commission Judge considered the motion and evaluated the penalty agreed to by the parties based on the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(i). If the Judge concluded that the settlement was consistent with the statutory criteria, the Judge issued a decision approving the settlement and setting forth the reasons for approval.

The interim rule changed the current procedure by adding two new requirements. First, in all penalty proceedings, except for discrimination proceedings arising under section 105(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c), or proceedings against individuals pursuant to section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(c), the interim rule requires that a party filing a motion to approve a penalty settlement submit a proposed decision approving settlement (“proposed order”) with the motion. Second, it requires the filing party to submit the motion and proposed order electronically. The basic requirementsfor content of a motion to approve settlement are relatively unchanged in that the interim rule requires that a movant include in the motion for each violation the amount of the proposed penalty, the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and facts that support the penalty agreed to by the parties. The Commission explained in the preamble to the interim rule that a filing party may set forth this information in the proposed order and incorporate the proposed order by reference in the motion.

The interim rule also includes a new requirement that the party filing the motion must certify that the opposing party has reviewed the motion and has authorized the filing party to represent that the opposing party consents to the granting of the motion and the entry of the proposed order approving settlement. In addition, the interim rule requires that, if a motion had been filed by a CLR on behalf of the Secretary of Labor, the accompanying proposed order must include a provision in which the Judge accepts the CLR to represent the Secretary in accordance with the notice of either limited or unlimited appearance previously filed with the Commission. The Commission has made sample forms for proposed orders approving settlement available on the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmshrc.gov).

The interim rule provides that in all penalty proceedings, except discrimination and section 110(c) proceedings, parties must file any settlement motion electronically in accordance with the rule and the Commission's Web site instructions. The Commission provides in the interim rule that a party may file non-electronically only with the permission of the Judge.

The interim rule further requires that a copy of a motion and proposed order be served on the opposing party as expeditiously as possible. In recognition that some parties may not have the capability of being served with the motion and proposed order by e-mail, facsimile transmission, or commercial delivery, the interim rule provides that, in such circumstances, the filing party may serve the motion and proposed order on the opposing party by mail.

The interim rule also provides that if a party filing a motion to approve settlement and proposed order fails to include required information in the motion and proposed order, the Commission will not accept for filing the motion and proposed order. Rather, the Commission will inform the filing party of the need for correction and resubmission.

As previously mentioned, before the interim rule became effective parties were required to include in a motion to approve settlement the amount of the proposed penalty, the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties. The final rule provides that such factual support must be submitted in the motion to approve settlement and proposed order. However, in order to minimize any extra work required of parties, the Commission has clarified in the final rule that a filing party need only submit the amount of the proposed penalty, the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties in the proposed order, and may incorporate that factual support by reference in the motion. Thus, the parties need to provide the factual support for a settlement only in one document filed with the Commission, as was the practice before the interim rule became effective.

It is important to emphasize that the Commission intends for each proposed order to be able to stand alone as a description of the settlement and reasons for any approval of the settlement without reference to the motion. Thus, although the motion may be brief and incorporate by reference the factual support set forth in detail in the proposed order, the reverse is not true. A party may not submit a brief order that incorporates by reference the factual support set forth in detail in the motion. If a party submits a motion that contains detailed factual support and a proposed order that merely incorporates by reference the detailed information provided in the motion, the Commission will not accept the motion and proposed order for filing in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of the final rule. The proposed order must set forth the amount of the proposed penalty, the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties.

Although motions may be submitted in PDF format, it is important that proposed orders not be submitted in PDF format. Judges are unable to make electronic changes to proposed orders that are submitted in PDF format. The Commission will be able to process settlements more efficiently if orders are submitted in a format in which the Judge may easily make any necessary changes.

Commenters have also complained that they are having technical difficulties with the forms available on the Commission's Web site, and that the interim rule is ambiguous as to whether parties are required to use the forms. The Secretary suggested that the final rule should clarify that the proposed order does not have to conform to one of the templates on the Commission's Web site as long as the proposed order includes the required information. The Secretary also commented that the final rule should require that the proposed order include language telling operators where to send penalty checks.

The Commission has clarified in the final rule that parties are not required to use the proposed order forms available on the Commission's Web site. The final rule provides, however, that if a proposed order fails to include pertinent information, the motion and proposed order may be rejected for filing by the Commission in accordance with paragraph (f) of the final rule. The Commission has not included in the final rule a requirement that a proposed order must include language telling operators where to send penalty checks. Such language is provided in the Commission's proposed order forms, however. The Commission notes that parties may include such language in the proposed orders even if they do not use the forms.

As to the certification requirement set forth in the interim rule, the Secretary commented that her attorneys and CLRs have difficulty verifying that operators have actually reviewed the settlement. She suggests that the purpose of the rule,i.e.,streamlining the settlement of penalty proceedings, would be better served if the filing party were only required to certify that the opposing party has authorized the granting of the motion and the entry of the proposed order.

In a related comment, a member of the mining community stated that on occasion CLRs have unilaterally filed “joint” settlement motions that have not been reviewed or approved by the operator. The commenter suggested that the Commission should require that any settlement motions must either be signed by both parties' representatives or, prior to filing, a settlement motion and proposed order must be submitted to the opposing party for review at least three business days prior to filing.

The Commission agrees with these comments and has revised the language of the rule accordingly. The final rule provides that the party filing a motion must certify that the opposing party has authorized the granting of the motion and the entry of the proposed order. The final rule does not require a certification that the opposing party has reviewed the motion and proposed order. In order to ensure that an opposing party has reviewed the motion and proposedorder, the Commission has added a provision to the final rule requiring that a settlement motion and proposed order must be served on all parties or if the parties are represented, on their representatives, at least five business days before the motion and proposed order are filed with the Commission. The Commission has included a five-day requirement rather than a three-day requirement in order to provide as much review time as possible to the parties, particularly if the settlement motion and proposed order are served by mail. The Commission notes that both the five-day service requirement and the certification requirement apply in every case where a settlement motion and proposed order are filed.

The Secretary commented that the final rule should clarify that before filing a settlement motion on behalf of the Secretary, a CLR does not need to have obtained Commission authorization to represent the Secretary in that proceeding. The Commission has included that change in the final rule.

One commenter stated that section 110(c) proceedings are frequently consolidated with, and/or are settled with, the related civil penalty proceeding against the operator. The commenter stated that in such circumstances, it makes sense to discuss the settlement of both cases in a single motion. The commenter suggested that section 110(c) proceedings should be covered by the final rule and should not be specifically excluded. The Commission agrees and has made this change. Thus, discrimination cases are the only cases in which a party must submit a hard paper copy of a motion to approve settlement to the Judge that includes for each violation the amount of the proposed penalty, the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement, and the supporting facts. In discrimination proceedings, a proposed order need not be submitted. Filing and service in discrimination proceedings shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 2700.5 and 2700.7.

Although notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) do not apply to rules of agency procedure (see5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), the Commission invites members of the interested public to submit comments on the final rule. The Commission will accept public comments until December 15, 2010.

The Commission is an independent regulatory agency and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866, E.O. 13132, or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.

The Commission has determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Statement and Analysis has not been prepared.

The Commission has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the OMB.

The Commission has determined that the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801) is not applicable here because, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), this rule “does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.”

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (http://www.treas.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

The Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (“BSR”), implement Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus” (“E.O. 13405”). Pursuant to E.O. 13405, on May 15, 2008, OFAC designated the entities Lakokraska OAO and Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, blocking their property and interests in property (73 FR 29849, May 22, 2008). On September 4, 2008, before the publication of the BSR, OFAC issued and posted on its Web site Belarus General License No. 1, which authorized all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO from September 4, 2008, until March 2, 2009. This authorization was subject to the proviso that all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that previously had been blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 were to remain blocked. OFAC subsequently amended Belarus General License No. 1 four times to extend its authorization for transactions between U.S. persons and the two entities. The latest of thoseamendments, Belarus General License No. 1-D, extended the authorization for all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO until November 30, 2010.

The BSR were published on February 3, 2010 (75 FR 5502). Section 548.509 of the BSR memorialized General License No. 1, as amended, and authorized all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO for a limited period of time. Today, OFAC is amending section 548.509(a) of the BSR to extend the authorization until May 31, 2011. U.S. persons may continue to engage in all transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR with Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, except that, as provided in section 548.509(b), any property and interests in property that were blocked prior to September 4, 2008, still remain blocked.

This rule also corrects a typographical error in the BSR's authority citation.

Because the amendments of the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. 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.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for the following events:

(1)Navy Pier Fireworks;on December 4, 2010 from 6:15 p.m. through 6:30 p.m.; on December 31, 2010 from 7:45 p.m. through 8:15 p.m.; and from 11:45 p.m. on December 31, 2010 to 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended. If the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the safety zone. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 an agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 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 the final details for this event were not submitted to the Coast Guard until October 27, 2010. As such, it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time. In addition, given the high risks of injury and damage that will be created during the filming of the movie Contagion, a delay in enacting this safety zone would be contrary to the public interest.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. A 30-day notice period is not possible for the same reasons that publishing an NPRM was not possible. Due to the high risks of personal injury and property damage that will be created during the filming of the movie Contagion, delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the filming of the motion picture Contagion. The filming of dangerous boat chases and other stunts on the water poses serious risks of injury to persons and property. As such, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the filming of this motion picture does pose significant risks to public safety and property and that a safety zone is necessary.

The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Calumet River in the vicinity of the South Torrence Avenue Bridge between Mile Marker 329.0 and Mile Marker 327.5 of the Calumet River in Chicago, IL. [DATUM: NAD 83].

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor on a portion of the Calumet River between 7 a.m. on December 11, 2010 until 7 a.m. on December 12, 2010.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be enforced while unsafe conditions exist. The Coast Guard also expects that traffic will generally be very low based on the time of year that this closure will occur.

In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

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 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 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 concern 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 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 the establishment of a safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone that will be effective for less than twenty four hours. As such, it fits within the categorical exclusion for safety zones.

A final environmental analysis checklist and 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 an agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 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 it is impracticable as the final details for this demolition were not received by the Coast Guard until November 9, 2010. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has reached out to potentially affected waterway users and has determined that potential impacts as a result of this safety zone will be minimal. Given the short time frame, low impact of the zone, and hazards associated with a bridge demolition, delaying the enactment of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. A 30 day notice period is impracticable given the short time frame for enacting this regulation. Given the hazards created by a bridge demolition, delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the demolition of the Seneca Highway Bridge. The detonation of explosives and the falling debris associated with the demolition of this bridge pose serious risks of injury to persons and property. As such, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the demolition of the Seneca Highway Bridge does pose significant risks to public safety and property and that a safety zone is necessary.

The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Illinois River in the vicinity of Seneca Highway Bridge between Mile Marker 252.5 and Mile Marker 253.0 of the Illinois River in Seneca, IL. [DATUM: NAD 83].

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor on a portion of the Illinois River between 6 a.m. on November 18, 2010 through 6 a.m. on November 19, 2010 and again from 6 a.m. on December 2, 2010 through 6 a.m. on December 11, 2010.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be enforced while unsafe conditions exist. Vessel traffic will be minimal due to the time of year that this closure will occur and because the location of the safety zone is in an area that typically does not experience high volumes of vessel traffic. Several commercial traffic entities have already been contacted concerning this closure and have confirmed that it will not affect them in a negative way.

In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on scene representative to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

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 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 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 concern 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 proposed 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 aretechnical 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 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 the establishment of a safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction.

A final environmental analysis check list and 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 the final details for this event were not received by the Coast Guard with sufficient time to allow for a public comment period. Given the hazards associated with this ship launching, delaying this rule to provide for public comment would be contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule to provide a 30-day notice period is contrary to the public interest due to the hazards associated with a ship launching.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the launching of the USS Fort Worth in Marinette, WI. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the launching of the USS Fort Worth does pose significant risks to public safety and property. As such, this safety zone is necessary to prevent injury to persons and damage to property.

This temporary safety zone will encompass all waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Marinette Marine Corporation, between the Bridge Street Bridge located in position 45°06′12″ N, 087°37′34″ W and a line crossing the river perpendicularly passing through position 45°05′57″ N, 087°36′43″ W, in the vicinity of the Ansul Company. (DATUM: NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Menominee River between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. on December 4, 2010.

This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic should be minimal given the location and the time of year that this event is occurring. Furthermore, this safety zone will only be in effect for six hours. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), 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 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 concern 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 proposed 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 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 the establishment of a temporary safety zone that will be in place for only six hours. Therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.T09-0166, on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 daily from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on December 6, 2010 through December 11, 2010 and from December 13, 2010 through December 18, 2010. This enforcement action will then occur again from 7 a.m. on December 20, 2010 through 5 p.m. on December 23, 2010.

This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dispersal barrier IIB startup testing poses risks to life and property. The combination of vessel traffic and electric current in the water makes the control of vessels through the impacted portion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal necessary to prevent injury and property loss.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.T09-0166 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will also provide notice through other means, which may include but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and e-mail notifications.

The Delaware HMIWI plan and related state rule were approved by EPA in the April 14, 2000 edition of theFederal Registerand codified in 40 CFR part 62, subpart I. (65 FR 20090). However, since that time, all three designated incinerator facilities in the plan inventory have been dismantled, according to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). On October 6, 2009, EPA promulgated revised HMIWI emission guidelines under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce, that triggered the need for revised state plans. As a result, on June 17, 2010, the DNREC requested EPA's approval of its negative declaration and plan withdrawal request. The submitted negative declaration contains the name of each designated facility that was dismantled, and the year it was dismantled.

EPA is approving the State of Delaware's negative declaration and request for EPA withdrawal of its plan approval for HMIWI units. DNREC has determined that there are now no designated facilities, subject to subpart Ce requirements, in its air pollution control jurisdiction. EPA accepts that determination. Accordingly, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect approval of the DNREC June 17, 2010 negative declaration and request for EPA withdrawal of the HMIWI plan approval. However, if an affected Delaware HMIWI unit is discovered in the future, all the requirements of the Federal Plan (including revisions or amendments), part 62, subpart HHH, will be applicable to the affected unit.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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 impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

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. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 31, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Delaware section 111(d)/129 negative declaration and request for EPA withdrawal of the HMIWI plan approval may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Table of Contents I. Background II. Today's Action III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

Detailed background information and rationale for today's final action can be found in EPA's proposed rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension of Attainment Date for the Atlanta, GA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area,” 75 FR 56943 (September 17, 2010). The comment period for EPA's proposed action closed on October 18, 2010. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on its proposed action to extend the attainment date for the Atlanta 1997 8-hour ozone area. This section includes a brief summary of the background information and rationale for EPA's approval of Georgia's one-year extension request.

Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator, within six months of the attainment date, to determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the NAAQS. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) states that, for areas classified as marginal, moderate, or serious, if the Administrator determines that the area did not attain the standard by its attainment date, the area must be reclassified to the next classification. However, in accordance with CAA Section 181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date under specified conditions. Specifically, in relevant part, Section 181(a)(5) states:

With regard to the first element, “applicable implementation plan” is defined in Section 302(q) of the CAA as, the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under Section 110, or promulgated under Section 110(c), or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under Section 301(d) and which implements the relevant requirements of the CAA.

The language in section 181(a)(5)(B) reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which is exceedance based and does not reflect the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is concentration based. Because section 181(a)(5)(B) does not reflect the form of the 8-hour NAAQS and application would produce an absurd result, EPA interprets this provision in a manner consistent with Congressional intent but reflecting the form of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. Therefore, EPA adopted an interpretation that under both section 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5), an area will be eligible for the first of the one-year extensions under the 8-hour NAAQS if, for the attainment year, the area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average is 0.084 ppm or less. The area will be eligible for the second extension if the area's 4th highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less. No more than 2 one-year extensions may be issued for a single nonattainment area.

EPA interprets the CAA and implementing regulations to allow the granting of a one-year extension under the following minimum conditions: (1) The State requests a one-year extension; (2) all requirements and commitments in the EPA-approved SIP for the area have been complied with; and (3) the area has a 4th highest daily 8-hour average of 0.084 ppm or less for the attainment year (or an area's 4th highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less, if a second one-year extension is requested). Because the Atlanta Area attainment date was June 15, 2010, the “attainment year” used for this purpose is the 2009 ozone season. The Georgia ozone season runs from March 1 to October 31 of any given year.

EPA has determined that Georgia has met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. As a result, EPA is taking final action to extend the Atlanta Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA has determined that Georgia is in compliance with the requirements and commitments associated with the EPA-approved implementation plan, and that the 4th highest daily 8-hour ozone average concentration for 2009 for the Atlanta Area is below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as required by the CAA. EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS ambient air quality monitoring data for the Atlanta Area, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and as recorded in the EPA Air Quality System database. On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that for the attainment year, 2009, the Atlanta Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average concentration was 0.077 ppm which is below the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (effectively 0.084 ppm). This final action is based upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2009. As provided in 40 CFR 51.907, this final action extends, by one year, the deadline by which the Atlanta Area must attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It also extends the timeframe by which EPA must make an attainment determination for the area.

EPA notes that this final action only relates to the initial one-year extension. As described in Section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, areas may qualify for up to 2 one-year extensions. If requested at a future date, EPA will make a determination of the appropriateness of a second one-year extension for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking.

EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's June 9, 2010, request for EPA to grant a one-year extension (from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011) of the Atlanta Area attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Georgia has met the statutory requirements for such an extension.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission or request from the states that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing the state's request for an extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date for the Atlanta Area, EPA's role is to approve state's request, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves a state's request for an extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of thisaction must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 31, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Because EPA received adverse comment, we are removing the direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company—Texas Operations, published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 58315. We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by October 25, 2010, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely removal in theFederal Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address the comments submitted in a subsequent final action which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 58346. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes Federal grants to States for Medicaid programs that provide medical assistance to low-income families, the elderly and persons with disabilities. Each State administers the Medicaid program in accordance with an approved Medicaid State plan. States have considerable flexibility in designing their programs, but must comply with Federal requirements specified in the Medicaid statute, regulations, and program guidance. Sections 1902(a)(2), 1903(a), and 1905(b) of the Act set forth requirements that describe how the responsibility to fund the Medicaid program will be shared between the Federal and State governments. Section 1905(b) of the Act delineates a percentage referred to as the Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) that determines on a State-by-State basis the Federal and non-Federal share of program expenditures. Section 1903(a) of the Act requires Federal reimbursement to the State of the Federal share. Section 1902(a)(2) of the Act and implementing regulations at 42 CFR 433.50(a)(1) permit a State to delegate some responsibility for the non-Federal share of medical assistance expenditures to local units of government sources under some circumstances.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from finalizing or otherwise implement the provisions contained in a proposed rule published on January 18, 2007, titled “Medicaid Program; Cost Limit for Providers Operated by Units of Government and Provisions To Ensure the Integrity of Federal-State Financial Partnership” (72 FR 2236 through 2248).

On May 29, 2007, the Department of Human and Human Services (DHHS) published a final rule with comment period titled, “Medicaid Program; Cost Limit for Providers Operated by Units of Government and Provisions To Ensure the Integrity of Federal-State Financial Partnership” in theFederal Register(72 FR 29747 through 29836).

That final rule eliminated, modified, or implemented regulatory requirements pertaining to the financial relationshipbetween the Federal and State governments. Specifically, this rule consisted of the following:

• Clarified that entities involved in the financing of the non-Federal share of Medicaid payments must be a unit of government.

• Clarified the documentation necessary to support a Medicaid certified public expenditure.

• Limited Medicaid reimbursement for health care providers that are operated by units of government to an amount that does not exceed the health care provider's cost of providing services to Medicaid individuals.

• Required all health care providers to receive and retain the full amount of total computable payments for services furnished under the approved Medicaid State plan.

• Made conforming changes to provisions governing the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to make the same requirements applicable, with the exception of the cost limit on reimbursement.

On May 23, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, inAlameda County Medical Center, et al.v.Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., 559 F. Supp. 2d,found that DHHS had improperly promulgated these regulations. The court stated that DHHS violated the Congressional moratorium on finalization of this regulation in the Troop Readiness, Veteran's Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriation Act of 2007 (UTRA), (Pub. L. 110-28) and vacated the rule and remanded the matter to DHHS. Accordingly, DHHS is removing the vacated rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 7001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 Public Law 110-252 extended the moratorium on finalizing the Cost rule to April 1, 2009. The Congress considered this matter again in the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Section 5003(d) of ARRA expressed the sense of Congress that the Cost rule should not be adopted as a final rule.

In this final rule, DHHS is removing all of the provisions that were issued in the May 29, 2007 final rule with comment period. Concurrently, DHHS is restoring regulation text so that the regulatory language impacted by the May 2007 final rule will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations as it did prior to issuance of that rule.

In § 433.50(a)(1), DHHS is removing the language that states “and section 1903(w)(7)(G).” DHHS is also removing “units of.” DHHS is also adding “s” to the word “government” and adding the word “both” before the words “State and local governments.” In addition, DHHS is removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this regulation.

In § 433.51, DHHS is revising the section heading to read“§ 433.51 Public funds as the State share of financial participation.”

In § 433.51(a), DHHS is adding the word “Public” before the word “funds.” DHHS is also removing the words “from units of government” of this regulation.

In § 433.51(b), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “The public funds are appropriated directly to the State or local Medicaid agency, or are transferred from other public agencies (including Indian tribes) to the State or local agency and under its administrative control, or certified by the contributing public agency as representing expenditures eligible for FFP under this section.”

In § 433.51(c), DHHS is adding the word “Public” before the word “funds.” DHHS is also removing the words “from units of government” of this regulation.

In part 447, DHHS is removing the entire provisions of § 447.206 of this regulation. (§ 447.207) Retention of payments.

In part 447, DHHS is removing the entire provisions of § 447.207 of this regulation.

In § 447.271(a), DHHS is adding an introductory phrase to read “Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,”.

In § 447.271(b), DHHS is removing the word “Reserved” and replacing it with “The agency may pay a public provider that provides services free or at a nominal charge at the same rate that would be used if the provider charges were equal to or greater than its costs.”

In § 447.272(a), DHHS is removing the word “nursing facilities” replacing it with “NFs.”

In § 447.272(a)(1), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “State government-owned or operated facilities (that is, all facilities that are either owned or operated by the State).”

In § 447.272(a)(2), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “Non-State government-owned or operated facilities (that is, all government facilities that are neither owned nor operated by the State).”

In § 447.272(a)(3), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “Privately-owned and operated facilities.”

In § 447.272(b)(1), DHHS is removing the words “For privately operated facilities.”

In § 447.272(b)(2), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “Except as provided for in paragraph (c) of this section, aggregate Medicaid payments to a group of facilities within one of the categories described in paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the upper payment limit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.”

In § 447.272(b)(3), DHHS is removing entire provision of this regulation.

In § 447.272(b)(4), DHHS is removing entire provision of this regulation.

In § 447.272(c), DHHS is removing symbol “—” and replacing it with “.”.

In § 447.272, DHHS is removing paragraph (c)(3) of this regulation.

In § 447.272(d)(1), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “For non-State government owned or operated hospitals—March 19, 2002.”

In § 447.321(a)(1), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “State government-owned or operated facilities (that is, all facilities that are owned or operated by the State).”

In § 447.321(a)(2), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “Non-State government owned or operated facilities (that is, all government operated facilities that are neither owned nor operated by the State).”

In § 447.321(a)(3), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “Privately-owned and operated facilities.”

In § 447.321(b)(1), DHHS is removing the words “For privately operated facilities,”.

In § 447.321(b)(2), DHHS is revising the provision to read “Except as provided for in paragraph (c) of this section, aggregate Medicaid payments toa group of facilities within one of the categories described in paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the upper payment limit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.”

In § 447.321, DHHS is removing paragraph (b)(3) of this regulation.

In § 447.321, DHHS is removing pargraph (b)(4) of this regulation.

In § 447.321(c)(1), DHHS is removing the designated number “(1)” of this regulation.

In § 447.321, DHHS is removing paragraph (c)(2) of this regulation.

In § 447.321, DHHS is removing paragraph (c)(3) of this regulation.

In § 447.321(d), DHHS is removing reference to paragraph “(b)” and replacing it with a reference to paragraph “(b)(1).”

In § 447.321(d)(1), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “For non-State government-owned or operated hospitals—March 19, 2002.”

In § 447.321, DHHS is removing paragraph (d)(2) and redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as paragraph (d)(2) of this regulation.

In § 457.220(a), DHHS is adding the word “Public” before the word “Funds.” DHHS is also removing the words “from units of government.”

In § 457.220(b), DHHS is revising the paragraph to read “The public funds are appropriated directly to the State or local SCHIP agency, or are transferred from other public agencies (including Indian tribes) to the State or local agency and are under its administrative control, or are certified by the contributing public agency as representing expenditures eligible for FFP under this section.”

In § 457.220(c), DHHS is adding the word “public” after the word “The” before the word “funds.” DHHS is also removing the words “from units of government.”

In § 457.628(a), DHHS is removing the parenthesis “(” before the word “sources” and removing the parenthesis “)” after the word “Donations” and adding a semicolon and the word “Donations.” In addition, DHHS is removing the words “and § 447.207 of this chapter (Retention of payments).”

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DHHS ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in theFederal Registerand invite public comment on the proposed rule. The notice of proposed rulemaking includes a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and the terms and substances of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. This procedure can be waived, however, if an agency finds good cause that a notice-and-comment procedure is impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and incorporates a statement of the finding and its reasons in the rule issued. DHHS has determined that providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on the amending regulations is unnecessary. This final rule merely removes regulatory language relating to CMS-2258-FC, which was vacated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As a result of this decision, the regulatory language related to CMS-2258-FC has no force or effect, and public comment would not affect that status. The presence of that language in the Code of Federal Regulations can be confusing, and thus the public interest would be served by removal of that language. Furthermore, removing this language from the Code of Federal Regulations and reinstating the prior regulatory language has no legal impact but simply reflects this final judicial determination.

For the same reasons, DHHS believes there is good cause for waiving any delay in the effective date, making the reinstated regulatory provisions immediately effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

DHHS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This regulatory action only removes those regulations vacated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Therefore, this action is not a “significant” regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. This rule also does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $7 million to $34.5 million in any one year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. DHHS is not preparing an analysis for the RFA because DHHS has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Core-Based Statistical Area (for Medicaid) and outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare) and has fewer than 100 beds. DHHS is not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2010, that threshold is approximately $135 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgatesregulations that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 27, 2010, and June 4, 2010, for a period of three years, for the information collection requirements contained in Sections 73.3571(k), 73.7000, 73.7002(b), and 73.7002(c) of the Commission's rules and FCC Forms 301, 314, 315, 316 and 340 and that the compliance date for these rules and forms published at 75 FR 9797, March 4, 2010, is November 30, 2010. If you have any comments on the burden estimates, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include OMB Control Numbers 3060-0029, 3060-0027, 3060-0996, 3060-0031 and/or 3060-0009 in your correspondence. The Commission also will accept your comments via the Internet if you send them toPRA@fcc.gov.To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0027, 3060-0029, 3060-0996, 3060-0031 and 3060-0009 and the total annual reporting burdens and costs for respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number:3060-0029.

OMB Approval Date:June 4, 2010.

Expiration Date:June 30, 2013.

Title:Application for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station.

Form Number:FCC Form 340.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:2,710 respondents and 2,710 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:2 to 5 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:6,700 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$27,894,950.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses:On April 7, 2009, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Matter of Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 09-30, 24 FCC Rcd 5239 (2009). On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order in the Matter of Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures (the “Order”), MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 10-24, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). In the Order, the Commission adopted the Tribal Priority proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, with some modifications. Under the Tribal Priority, a Section 307(b) priority will apply to an applicant meeting all of the following criteria: (1) The applicant is either a federally recognized Tribe or tribal consortium, or an entity 51 percent or more of which is owned or controlled by a Tribe or Tribes (with the Tribes or entities occupying tribal lands that are covered by at least 50 percent of the daytime principal community contour of the proposed facility); (2) at least 50 percent of the daytime principal community contour of the proposed facilities covers tribal lands, in addition to meeting all other Commission technical standards; (3) the specified community of license is located on tribal lands; and (4) the applicant proposes the first local tribal-owned noncommercial educational transmission service at the proposed community of license. The proposed Tribal Priority would apply, if applicable, before the fair distribution analysis currently used by noncommercial educational applicants. The Tribal Priority does not prevail over an applicant proposing first overall reception service to a significant population.

FCC Form 340 and its instructions are being revised to accommodate those applicants qualifying for the new Tribal Priority. Specifically, we are adding new Questions 1 and 2, which seek information as to the applicant's eligibility for the Tribal Priority and direct applicants claiming the priority to prepare and attach an exhibit, to Section III. The instructions for Section III have been revised to assist applicants with completing the new questions and preparing the exhibit. Also, the Commission removed FCC Form 302-DTV, Application for Digital Television Broadcast Station License, and FCC Form 349, Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM Booster Station, from this information collection to allow the Commission to more effectively manage the information collections.

OMB Control Number:3060-0027.

OMB Approval Date:June 4, 2010.

Expiration Date:June 30, 2013.

Title:Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station.

Form Number:FCC Form 301.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:4,453 respondents and 7,889 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:3 to 6.25 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:19,561 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$85,096,314.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses:On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Order”) in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 10-24, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). The Order adopts changes to certain procedures associated with the award of broadcast radio construction permits by competitive bidding, including modifications to the manner in which it awards preferences to applicants under the provisions of Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). With regard to AM application processing, the Commission adopted a proposal to explicitly prohibit the downgrading of proposed AM facilities that receive a dispositive preference under Section 307(b) of the Act and thus are not awarded through competitive bidding. Specifically, an AM applicant that receives a dispositive preference under Section 307(b) will not be allowed to later modify that proposal to serve a smaller population or otherwise negate the factors that led to the award of the preference. The Commission imposed these restrictions for a period of four years of on-air operations. These procedural safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity of our Section 307(b) analyses.Consistent with actions taken by the Commission in the Order, FCC Form 301 has been revised to add questions, specifically asking the applicant to certify that the construction permit application complies with the four year service requirements. The instructions for FCC Form 301 have been revised to assist applicants with completing the new questions.

OMB Control Number:3060-0996.

OMB Approval Date:May 27, 2010.

Expiration Date:May 31, 2013.

Title:AM Auction Section 307(b) Submissions.

Form Number:N/A.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:160 respondents and 160 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:0.5 to 3 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 307(b) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:375 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$71,200.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses:On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Order”) in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 10-24, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). The Order adopts changes to certain procedures associated with the award of broadcast radio construction permits by competitive bidding, including modifications to the manner in which it awards preferences to applicants under the provisions of Section 307(b). In the Order, the Commission added a new Section 307(b) priority that would apply only to Native American and Alaska Native Tribes, tribal consortia, and majority tribal-owned entities proposing to serve tribal lands. The priority is onlyavailable when all of the following conditions are met: (1) The applicant is either a federally recognized Tribe or tribal consortium, or an entity that is 51 percent or more owned or controlled by a Tribe or Tribes; (2) at least 50 percent of the daytime principal community contour of the proposed facilities will cover tribal lands, in addition to meeting all other Commission technical standards; (3) the specified community of license is located on tribal lands; and (4) in the commercial AM service, the applicant must propose first or second aural reception service or first local commercial tribal-owned transmission service to the proposed community of license, which must be located on tribal lands. Applicants claiming Section 307(b) preferences using these factors will submit information to substantiate their claims. The Commission will dismiss, without further processing, the previously filed AM auction filing window application and technical proposal of any applicant that fails to file an amendment addressing the Section 307(b) criteria, where required. Mutually exclusive AM applicants may not use this as an opportunity to change the technical proposal specified in the AM auction filing window application. The Section 307(b) showing must be based on the technical proposal as specified in the AM auction filing window application.

OMB Control Number:3060-0031.

OMB Approval Date:May 27, 2010.

Expiration Date:May 31, 2013.

Title:Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 314; Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 315; Section 73.3580, Local Public Notice of Filing of Broadcast Applications.

Form Number:FCC Forms 314 and 315.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:4,820 respondents and 12,520 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:2 to 6 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303(b) and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:18,443 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$36,168,450.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses:On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Order”) in MB Docket No. 09-52; FCC 10-24, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). The Order adopts rule changes designed to streamline and clarify certain procedures associated with the award of broadcast radio construction permits by competitive bidding. In the Order, the Commission also adopted a priority under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to assist federally recognized Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (“Tribes”), enrolled members of Tribes, and entities primarily owned or controlled by Tribes or enrolled members of Tribes, in obtaining broadcast radio construction permits designed primarily to serve tribal lands (the “Tribal Priority”). Applicants affiliated with Tribes who meet certain conditions regarding tribal membership and signal coverage qualify for the Tribal Priority, which in most cases will enable the qualifying applicants to obtain construction permits without proceeding to competitive bidding, in the case of commercial stations, or to point system evaluation, in the case of noncommercial educational (“NCE”) stations. Once a permit is obtained, it cannot be assigned or transferred to another person or entity for a period beginning with issuance of the construction permit until the station has completed four years of on-air operations, unless the assignee or transferee also qualifies for the Tribal Priority.

Consistent with actions taken by the Commission in the Order, the following changes are made to Forms 314 and 315: Section I of each form includes a new question asking applicants to indicate whether any of the authorizations involved in the transaction were obtained (or, in the case of non-reserved band commercial FM stations the allotment for the station was obtained) through the Tribal Priority. The instructions for Section I of Forms 314 and 315 have been revised to assist applicants with completing the new questions.

OMB Control Number:3060-0009.

OMB Approval Date:May 27, 2010.

Expiration Date:May 31, 2013.

Title:Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License or Transfer of Control of Corporation Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License.

Form Number:FCC Form 316.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:750 respondents and 750 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:1.5 to 4.5 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:1,231 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$711,150.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses:On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Order”) in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 10-24, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). The Order adopts rule changes designed to streamline and clarify certain procedures associated with the award of broadcast radio construction permits by competitive bidding. To prevent unjust enrichment by parties that acquire broadcast construction permits through the use of a bidding credit in an auction, Section 73.5007(c) of the Rules requires reimbursement to the Commission of all or part of the bidding credit upon a subsequent assignment or transfer of control, if the proposed assignee or transferee is not eligible for the same percentage of bidding credit. The rule is routinely applied to “long form” assignment or transfer applications filed on FCC Forms 314 and 315. In the Order, the Commission also sought to clarify that the unjust enrichment payments to the government must be made even when an assignment or transfer is pro forma in nature and therefore filed on FCC Form 316. This ensures that applicants do not use the summary pro forma assignment and transfer procedures to circumvent the unjust enrichment requirements.

Consistent with actions taken by the Commission in the Order, FCC Form 316 has been revised to add the broadcast auction-based questions presently included on FCC Forms 314and 315, specifically asking the applicants to certify that the proposed assignment or transfer complies with the unjust enrichment provisions of the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The instructions for FCC Form 316 have been revised to assist applicants with completing the new questions.

On September 4, 2009, NMFS published a proposed rule (74 FR 45798) to implement changes to access requirements for midwater trawl vessels fishing in CA I, at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), with the intended goal of collecting better information on bycatch in the midwater trawl fishery. A final rule was published on November 2, 2009 (74 FR 56562), that implemented regulations requiring 100-percent observer coverage of trips by vessels with limited access Atlantic herring All Areas and/or Areas 2 and 3 category permits fishing for herring in CA I with midwater trawl gear. The rule also prohibited these vessels from releasing fish from the codend of the net, transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying an observer, or otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish has first been brought on board the vessel and made available for sampling and inspection by the observer. The regulations implemented by the November 2, 2009, rule (74 FR 56562) provided the following exemptions to this prohibition:

• The vessel operator has determined there is a compelling safety reason; or

• A mechanical failure precludes bringing the fish aboard the vessel for inspection; or,

• After pumping of fish onto the vessel has begun, the vessel operator determines that pumping becomes impossible as a result of spiny dogfish clogging the pump intake. Under this scenario, the vessel operator must take reasonable measures (such as strapping and splitting the net) to remove all fish that can be pumped from the net prior to release; or

• When there are small amounts of fish that cannot be pumped and remain in the net at the completion of pumping operations.

Additionally, under these regulations, if a codend is released in accordance with one of the first three exemptions, the vessel operator must complete and sign an affidavit to NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) stating the vessel name and permit number; the vessel trip report (VTR) serial number; where, when, and for what reason the catch was released; the total weight of fish caught on that tow; and the weight of fish released (if less than the full tow). Completed affidavits are to be submitted to OLE at the conclusion of the trip. Following a released codend under one of the first three exemptions, the vessel may not fish in CA I for the remainder of the trip.

The exception allowing small amounts of fish that cannot be pumped from the net (sometimes called operational discards) to be released unobserved from the net while still in the water was not specifically mentioned in the proposed rule. NMFS considered this exemption to be a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule that needed no further public comment because it addressed a foreseeable practical problem that a small amount of fish may be left in a net after pumping operations were completed.

However, following publication of the final rule three fishermen filed a lawsuit challenging the exemption allowing the release of small amounts of fish that remain after pumping (Taylor et al.v.Locke,09-CV-02289-HHK). Plaintiffs alleged that this additional exemption violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was not a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule and should have been subjected to public comment, and that it violated conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by allowing fish to be released from herring nets unobserved. Plaintiffs also claimed that the terms “small amounts of fish” and “at the completion of pumping operations” were not adequately defined.

Without admitting any violation of applicable law in publishing the original final rule, NMFS and the plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation while NMFS repromulgated the challenged provision, to solicit public comment. On September 7, 2010, NMFS published a proposed rule (75 FR 54292), that repromulgated the challenged provision (§ 648.80(d)(7)(ii)(D)) and solicited public comment on whether to retain, delete, or amend the additional exemption in question. The proposed rule sought comment on: Retaining the exemption as it currently exists (status quo); eliminating the exemption (Alternative 1); modifying the exemption by specifying a maximum of 200 lb (90.7 kg) of fish that could be released (Alternative 2); or modifying the exemption by requiring that the codend either be brought on board or lifted out of the water, at the captain's discretion, so the observer could better estimate the amount and type of fish being released (Alternative 3). Public comments were accepted through October 7, 2010. Comments received are summarized and responded to below.

Based on public comment received, NMFS is implementing “Alternative 1,” and is removing the exemption for operational discards at § 648.80(d)(7)(ii)(D). Therefore, if fish remain in the net at the conclusion of pumping operations, those fish will have to be brought on board the vessel and made available for sampling andinspection by the observer, unless one of the other three exemptions applies. Therefore, fish that have not been pumped on board the vessel may be released if the vessel operator finds that: Pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel; mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of a catch on board the vessel; or spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the catch. If a net is released for any of these three reasons, the vessel operator must complete and sign a CA I Midwater Trawl Released Codend Affidavit stating where, when, and why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of both the total weight of fish caught on that tow and the weight of fish released (if the tow had been partially pumped). The completed affidavit form must be submitted to NMFS within 48 hr of the completion of the trip.

Following the release of a net for one of the three exemptions, the vessel is required to exit CA I. The vessel may continue to fish, but may not fish in CA I for the remainder of the trip.

A total of 5,924 comments were received during the comment period for the proposed rule from: 2 representatives of the commercial herring midwater trawl industry; 2 coalitions of herring advocacy groups; 5 representatives of recreational fishing organizations; 4 commercial groundfish organizations; 2 state elected officials (MA State Senator Robert A. O'Leary and MA State Representative Sarah K. Peake); 1 U.S. Congressman (Representative William Delahunt, MA); 6 environmental organizations; 1 community organization; 2 agriculture and fishery advocacy groups; the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC); and 5,898 individuals. One comment was received after the close of the comment period. The vast majority of comments were form letters submitted by environmental organizations. The two representatives from the commercial herring midwater trawl industry supported the status quo. All other comments received supported Alternative 1 in the proposed rule. Alternatives 2 or 3 were not supported by any commenters and were criticized as being impractical or ineffective.

Comment 1:The two representatives of the commercial midwater trawl herring industry supported the status quo measure and raised concerns about each of the proposed alternatives. To illustrate their concerns, they described current procedures and how these procedures are not compatible with the proposed alternatives. The commenters noted that, under current operations, a vessel typically brings the full net alongside the vessel, where the end of the net is hoisted aboard in order to attach the pump. The pump and net are then lowered back into the water and splitting lines and straps are used to move catch to the pump. When the pump is moving mostly water, with an occasional fish, pumping is stopped, and the pump is removed from the net, leaving the codend open and releasing any fish that are still in the net. The empty net is then brought aboard in order to reset clips and rings before being set out for the next tow. The commenters assert that it could be dangerous for a vessel to attempt to re-cinch the end of the net after pumping is concluded in order to then bring the net aboard with the remaining catch.

Response:NMFS acknowledges that some vessels may need to adjust their fishing practices in order to remove the fish pump from the net without releasing the remaining fish, so that the fish in the net can be brought aboard for the observer to sample. The time between publication of this rule and when it becomes effective can be used by these vessels to develop alternative methods that allow safe operation within these requirements. A vessel may continue to fish outside of CA I while new procedures are developed. NMFS believes the safety and other exemptions sufficiently address commenters' concerns regarding the practical and safety operational difficulties of bringing nets on board vessels after pumping operations while creating a disincentive to invoke the exemption without justification. For any safety problems in bringing the net on board for inspection after pumping operations are complete, the vessel operator may take advantage of the exemption allowing release of fish for vessel safety. However, the vessel would still need to abide by the requirements of this exemption, including leaving CA I for the remainder of that trip.

Comment 2:The two representatives of the commercial midwater trawl herring industry asserted that it is impossible for these vessels to safely bring full nets and brailers over the side or over the stern of the vessel. In contrast, several other commenters cited remarks from a member of the commercial herring midwater trawl industry at the July 15, 2010, meeting of the Council's Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team, that a midwater trawl vessel could not bring aboard a full net, but could bring aboard up to 1 ton (907.1 kg) of fish in the net. A commenter who claimed experience on both midwater trawl and purse seine herring vessels also asserted that up to 1 ton (907.1 kg) of fish could safely be brought on board a midwater trawl vessel.

Response:This action does not require full nets and brailers to be brought aboard a vessel. The intent of the subject exemption was the release of very small amounts of fish, perhaps a few hundred pounds per tow, which physically could not be pumped. It was not intended to cover the release of larger amounts of fish. Three other exemptions, for safety, mechanical failure, or spiny dogfish clogging the pump allow release of larger catches that cannot be pumped aboard.

Comment 3:The representatives of the commercial midwater trawl herring industry stated that the proposed alternatives are unnecessary because at-sea observers are currently provided nearly every opportunity to estimate the volume, and most often the species of fish, remaining in the net before it is released. Conversely, on this subject several individuals, commercial groundfish organizations, and coalitions of herring advocacy groups opposed observer sampling protocols that rely on such “visual access” to the codend to estimate catch that is released. These commenters supported Alternative 1 as the only way to accurately account for all catch by the midwater trawl vessels operating in CA I.

Response:When determining the volume of fish before release, the at-sea observer must often rely on the estimations provided by the vessel operator and crew who are much more familiar with the specific gear in use. Species identification of fish remaining in the net is not typically possible. Observers may be able to identify large-bodied organisms in the net, but are unable to reliably differentiate many fish to their species. Even if fish at the surface of the net are identifiable, the contents may not be homogeneous and the observer cannot determine the full composition of the net. Therefore, released catch is typically classified as “Fish, NK” (i.e., fish, species not known). The Council's request for increased observer coverage in CA I was intended in part to provide additional information on the total catch of this fishery that could then inform future management actions. In order to provide the most complete and valuable information for this purpose, it is important to record, as completely and accurately as possible, the catch of vessels subject to this increased observer coverage. The removal of this exemption may help to address continued questions regardingstratification of catch within a net or whether the pump housing, which is primarily designed to keep the net out of the pump, might also exclude some larger bodied species.

Comment 4:The ASMFC supported Alternative 1, but suggested NMFS periodically review this measure to determine if the level of data collection continues to be necessary and if the burden to the industry is justified.

Response:This rule may be re-considered and even superseded by a future Council action modifying the catch monitoring program for the Atlantic herring fishery as a whole. If the Council does not choose to review and reevaluate the requirements for access to CA I, the regulations would still be subject to the normal periodic review process and could be changed to account for new information about the burden on the fishery if necessary or appropriate.

Comment 5:No commenter supported either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Representatives of the commercial herring midwater trawl industry, representatives of commercial groundfish industry, and environmental groups all criticized these proposed alternatives as being unworkable.

Response:As explained in the proposed rule, these alternatives were intended as examples of possible modification to the existing regulation. The limit on how much can be released in Alternative 2 would be difficult to estimate, and could put the observer in an enforcement role. Alternative 3 would require the vessel crew to re-cinch the net after pumping, which is one of the major hurdles to bringing the catch on board. In addition, raising the net out of the water does not address the question of catch composition within the net and may pose even more logistical problems than bringing the net and catch on board. Therefore, NMFS did not consider either of these as acceptable alternatives for this final rule.

Comment 6:Some commenters objected to the Council granting midwater trawl vessels access to CA I for various reasons, including that midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas was authorized based on less research and analysis than was required for the establishment of the NE Multispecies CA I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program (SAP). These comments included opposition to all midwater trawling, requests that the 100 percent observer coverage requirements apply to all groundfish closed areas, questions on the use and enforcement of the Closed Area I Midwater Trawl Released Codend Affidavit, and objections to the Council's requirement that in order to access CA I vessels targeting groundfish through the NE Multispecies CA I, Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program had to meet a higher hurdle in terms of documenting bycatch than did midwater trawl vessels.

Response:These comments question the underlying provision of allowing midwater trawl vessels access to CA I, and other attendant requirements, which is beyond the scope of this rule, and, therefore not addressed in this final rule.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Herring and NE Multispecies FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received no comments questioning or regarding this certification.

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

The 2010 TAC of big skate in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,049 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2010 and 2011 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (75 FR 11749, March 12, 2010).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2010 TAC of big skate in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that big skate caught in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA(AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of big skate in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 22, 2010.

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

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

The 2010 TAC of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 81 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2010 and 2011 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (75 FR 11749, March 12, 2010).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2010 TAC of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that longnose skate caught in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 22, 2010.

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

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.