The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in theFederal Register, 73 FR 64899, October 31, 2008, proposing to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The system of records is the DHS/USCG—008 Courts Martial Case Files System of Records. The DHS/USCG—008 Courts Martial Case Files system of records notice (SORN) was published concurrently in theFederal Register, 73 FR 64961, October 31, 2008. Comments were invited on both the NPRM and the SORN. Public comments were received on the NPRM. No comments were received on the SORN.

DHS/USCG received two public comments on the NPRM. The first comment focused on the rights of an individual stating that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.″ This system will be used by the DHS/USCG to collect and maintain records on military and civilian employees of the DHS/USCG who are tried by, or involved with, a courts martial in the DHS/USCG. By issuing these exemptions, DHS/USCG is not abdicating its duty to conduct fair and impartial courts martial proceedings. Rather, these exemptions only apply to the Privacy Act and would not limit the ability of an individual to obtain records pursuant to other authorities, such as applicable rules for courts martial.

The second public comment received focused on withholding information from a member of the DHS/USCG uniformed service as a result of the exemptions claimed in the proposed rule. Exemptions claimed in the proposed rule are neither designed nor intended, without reason, to withhold information from anyone. However, it is occasionally necessary and appropriate for the DHS/USCG to protect material compiled for law enforcement purposes, including some records pertaining to investigations, inquiries, and criminal proceedings, as well as national security and intelligence activities. No comments were received on the system of records notice. DHS will implement the rulemaking as proposed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 927, as amended (7 CFR part 927), regulating the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington, hereinafterreferred to as the “order.″ The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.″

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

The handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington is regulated by 7 CFR part 927. This rule continues in effect the interim rule that added an exemption for consumer-direct sales of up to 220 pounds of fresh pears per customer and transaction, for home use only, and made directly at orchards, packing facilities, roadside stands, or farmers' markets. These consumer-direct sales are exempt from the marketing order's assessment, reporting, handling, and inspection requirements. The Committee believes that the volume represented by these pear sales is insignificant and will not adversely affect the domestic and international marketing of commercial quantities of fresh pears. The majority of promotional funds collected by the Committee are utilized for large-scale promotional efforts that do not have a direct relationship or benefit to these consumer-direct sales. This exemption provides regulatory flexibility to small pear handlers, while facilitating the sale of fresh, local pears directly to consumers.

In an interim rule published in theFederal Registeron January 25, 2011, and effective on January 26, 2011, (76 FR 4202, Doc. No. AMS-FV-10-0072, FV10-927-1 IR), a new § 927.122 was added to the order's rules and regulations providing for the consumer-direct exemption.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 1,537 growers of fresh pears in the regulated production area and approximately 38 handlers subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.

According to the Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2010 Preliminary Summary issued in January 2010 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average 2009 fresh pear price of $456 per ton places the farm-gate value of fresh pears grown in Oregon and Washington at $202,053,810. Based on the number of fresh pear growers in the Oregon-Washington production area, the average gross revenue for each grower can be estimated at approximately $131,460. Furthermore, based on Committee records, the Committee has estimated that 56 percent of Northwest pear handlers currently ship less than $7,000,000 worth of fresh pears on an annual basis. From this information, it is concluded that the majority of growers and handlers of Oregon and Washington pears may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that exempts from regulation fresh pears that are sold directly to consumers—in quantities of 220 pounds or less per customer and transaction—at orchards, packing houses, roadside stands, and farmers' markets. This change provides small pear handlers with increased marketing flexibility while facilitating the sale of pears in local markets. Section § 927.65(b) of the order authorizes the establishment of regulations that exempt specified quantities of pears, or types of pear shipments from the order.

This action is expected to have a beneficial impact on the Northwest pear industry, especially on small growers and handlers. The Committee's goal is that this exemption will reduce overall costs to the pear industry, relax the burden on small businesses, and facilitate the distribution of fruit at the local level. The Committee believes that this action will be especially beneficial to small independent businesses because such agricultural operations tend to utilize roadside stands and farmers' markets more than do large, vertically integrated entities. The Committee has stated that the majority of pear handlers are small businesses under the SBA definition. Although this rule was recommended by the Committee with the goal of helping small pear grower handlers and handlers, it does not prevent large businesses from realizing the same benefits.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pear handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Oregon-Washington pear industry and all interested persons were invited to participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the April 22, 2010, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before March 28, 2011. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, USDA is adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-10-0072-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in theFederal Register(76 FR 4202, January 25, 2011) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.″ The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.″

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted there from. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule extends the one-year suspension of the order's handling regulation for russet potato varieties for the 2011-2012 and subsequent fiscal periods. The current one-year suspension of the russet potato handling regulation ends June 30, 2011. This action also extends the reporting requirement for russet potato handlers to obtain information necessary for the collection of assessments and statistical data. This rule allows the Washington potato industry to continue marketing russet potatoes without regard to the minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements prescribed under the Washington potato marketing order.

Section 946.52 of the order authorizes the establishment of grade, size, quality, or maturity regulations for any variety or varieties of potatoes grown in the production area. Section 946.52 also authorizes regulation of the size, capacity, weight, dimensions, pack, and marking or labeling of the container, or containers, which may be used in the packing or handling of potatoes, or both. Section 946.51 further authorizes the modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued under § 946.52. Section 946.60 provides that whenever potatoes are regulated pursuant to § 946.52 such potatoes must be inspected by the Federal State Inspection Program (FSIP), and certified as meeting the applicable requirements of such regulations.

Section 946.70 authorizes the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to require information from handlers that will enable the Committee to exercise its duties under the order.

Section 946.336 of the order's administrative rules and regulations prescribes the grade, size, quality, cleanness, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements for fresh market Washington potatoes.

The Committee meets regularly to consider recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements for Washington potatoes which have been issued on a continuing basis. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The USDA reviews Committee recommendations, information submitted by the Committee, and other available information, and determines whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

The Committee met on June 1, 2010, and recommended suspending the minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements (handling regulation) for a one-year period. In addition, the Committee recommended that a new reporting provision be implemented to require handlers to report their russet potato shipments during this period to enablethe Committee to collect assessments and compile statistics. This information replaced similar information obtained from FSIP reports, which would not be available as a result of the suspension of the handling regulations. These recommendations were implemented by the USDA with an interim rule published in theFederal Registeron July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43042), and finalized on December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77749).

The handling regulation was suspended temporarily so the Committee could evaluate the effects of operating without regulation, such as potential cost savings to handlers through elimination of mandatory inspection of product, and the potential market impact of operating with no mandatory quality and inspection requirements.

During the period when the temporary suspension of the handling regulation was in effect, most handlers reportedly continued to have their product inspected prior to shipment to satisfy their customer's needs and market requirements. However, since full-time inspection was not mandatory, handlers were able to coordinate the timing and utilization of inspection services to meet the needs of their individual operations, resulting in improved efficiencies and reduced costs. No negative market impacts were experienced as a result of the temporary suspension. Handlers have continued to meet their customer's specifications and needs, either with voluntary inspection or no inspection. The Committee believes that the suspension of the russet potato handling regulation, effective from July 24, 2010, through June 30, 2011, has been successful. Therefore, at its January 26, 2011, meeting, the Committee recommended extending the suspension of the handling regulation for russet potatoes for the 2011-2012 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee also recommended extending the reporting requirement for russet potato handlers to obtain information necessary for the collection of assessments and statistical data.

This rule permits handlers to continue shipping russet potatoes without regard to minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements for the 2011-2012 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule also continues the reporting requirement for russet potato handlers to collect assessments and compile statistical data. Authorization to assess handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program.

Although this rule continues to provide russet potato handlers the opportunity to decrease their total costs by elimination of the expenses associated with mandatory inspection, it does not restrict handlers from seeking inspection on a voluntary basis. The Committee will continue to evaluate the effects of the suspension on marketing and on producer returns at future Committee meetings.

Although continuing to require handler reports, this rule, through the suspension of the handling regulation and thereby mandatory inspection, is expected to reduce overall industry expenses.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 43 handlers of Washington potatoes subject to regulation under the order (inclusive of the 33 russet potato handlers) and approximately 267 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

During the 2009-2010 fiscal period, the Committee reports that 9,765,131 hundredweight of Washington potatoes were shipped into the fresh market. Based on average f.o.b. prices estimated by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Committee data on individual handler shipments, the Committee estimates that 42, or approximately 98 percent of the handlers, had annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for Washington potatoes for 2010 was $7.55 per hundredweight. The average gross annual producer revenue for each of the 267 Washington potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $276,130. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington potato producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule extends the one-year suspension of the handling regulation for russet potato varieties for the 2011-2012 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule also extends the reporting requirement for russet potato handlers to obtain information necessary to administer the order. This rule is expected to reduce overall industry expenses while providing the industry with the opportunity to continue exploring alternative marketing strategies.

The authority for regulation is provided in § 946.52 of the order, while authority for reports and records is provided in § 946.70. In addition, the handling regulation and reporting requirement are specified under §§ 946.336 and 946.143, respectively, of the order's administrative rules and regulations.

The Committee anticipates that this rule will not negatively impact small businesses. This rule will extend the one-year suspension of minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements indefinitely. Though inspections will not be mandated for russet potatoes handled under the order, handlers may at their discretion choose to have their potatoes inspected. Handlers are thus able to control costs—which are generally passed on to producers—based on the demands of their customers. The Committee reports that during the 2009-2010 fiscal period, the total cost of inspection—at $0.07 per hundredweight for the approximately 7,421,500 hundredweight of Washington russet potatoes shipped—was about $519,505. This is approximately $15,743 per handler.

The Committee discussed alternatives to this recommendation. The Committee considered suspending the handling regulation for russet potatoes for another one-year period. However, the Committee believes that the current one-year suspension has been successful and recommended extending the suspension of the handling regulation for russet potatoes indefinitely.

This rule continues the monthly reporting requirement for russet potato handlers. The reports provide the Committee with information necessary to track shipments and collect assessments. The information collection burden generated from the temporary suspension of the handling regulation (75 FR 77749) was merged into the generic vegetable package under OMBNumber 0581-0178 and continues in effect until March 31, 2014.

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

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

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited to participate in Committee deliberations. Like all committee meetings, the January 26, 2011, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Further, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Antoinette Carter at the previously mentioned address in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

This rule invites comments on modifications to the handling regulation and reporting requirement for russet potatoes under the Washington potato marketing order. The modifications revise the introductory text of both regulations by removing a sentence in § 946.143 and by removing and replacing text in § 946.336. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in theFederal Registerbecause: (1) Any changes resulting from this rule should be effective July 1, 2011, because the one-year suspension of the russet potato-handling regulation ends June 30, 2011; (2) the Committee discussed and unanimously recommended these changes at a public meeting and all interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (3) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is amended as follows:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington,Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.″ The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.″

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2011.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The Committee meets annually in the fall to adopt a marketing policy for the ensuing marketing year or years. In determining such marketing policy, the Committee considers a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the current and projected supply, estimated future demand, production costs, and producer prices for all classes of spearmint oil, as well as input from spearmint oil handlers and producers regarding prospective marketing conditions. During the meeting, the Committee recommends to USDA any volume regulations deemed necessary to meet market requirements and to establish orderly marketing conditions for Far West spearmint oil. If the Committee's marketing policy considerations indicate a need for limiting the quantity of any or all classes of spearmint oil marketed, the Committee subsequently recommends the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for such class or classes of oil for the forthcoming marketing year.

The salable quantity represents the total amount of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the marketing year. Each producer is allotted a prorated share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to that producer's allotment base for each applicable class of spearmint oil. The producer allotment base is each producer's quantified share of the spearmint oil market based on a statistical representation of past spearmint oil production and the accommodation for reasonable and normal adjustments to such base as prescribed by the Committee and approved by USDA. Salable quantities are established at levels intended to meet market requirements and to establish orderly marketing conditions. Committee recommendations for volume controls are made well in advance of the period in which the regulations are to be effective, thereby allowing producers the chance to adjust their production decisions accordingly.

Pursuant to authority in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight-member Committee met on October 13, 2010, and recommended salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year. The Committee, in a vote of six members in favor and two members opposed, recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil of 694,774 pounds and 34 percent, respectively. The two members opposing the action favored an undetermined greater salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil. For Native spearmint oil, the Committee unanimously recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage of 1,012,983 pounds and 44 percent, respectively.

This final rule limits the amount of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2011. Salable quantities and allotment percentages have been placed into effect each season since the order's inception in 1980.

The U.S. production of Scotch spearmint oil is concentrated in the Far West, which includes Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and a portion of Nevada and Utah. Scotch type oil is also produced in seven other States: Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Scotch spearmint oil is produced outside of the U.S., with China and India being the largest global competitors of domestic Scotch spearmint oil production.

The Far West's share of total global Scotch spearmint oil sales has varied considerably over the past several decades, from 72 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 2002. Recently, sales of Far West Scotch spearmint oil have risen to over 48 percent of world sales, and are expected to hold steady, or go even higher, in the coming years.

In spite of the Far West's growing share of the world market for Scotch spearmint oil, the industry has faced some stressful marketing conditions during the most recent marketing years. Spearmint oil producers experienced relatively good economic conditions in the years from 2004 through 2007, which led to overproduction and an environment of excess supply in the market beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2010. The Far West region, which produced 635,508 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil in 2004, produced 1,050,700 pounds just five years later in 2009, a 65 percent increase.

In addition to the recent oversupply concerns, the demand for Far West Scotch spearmint oil, which peaked in 2005 at 1,002,779 pounds, has experienced a steady decline to just 627,868 pounds in 2009. With production rising and sales dropping, excess inventory of uncommitted Scotch spearmint oil began to accumulate. Scotch spearmint oil carry-in (unsold salable quantity from prior years that is available for sale at the beginning of a new marketing year), which serves as a measure of oversupply in the market, grew from 23,141 pounds in 2007 to 431,028 pounds in 2010.

The Committee's response to the deteriorating marketing environment since 2008 has been to recommend the tightening of volume control regulations. The Committee, which recommended a 2008-2009 marketing year Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity of 993,067 pounds, dropped the recommendation to 802,067 pounds for the 2009-2010 marketing year, and to only 566,962 pounds for the 2010-2011 marketing year. Similarly, the recommended allotment percentage was reduced from 50 percent for the 2008-2009 period to 40 percent for 2009-2010, and down to just 28 percent for 2010-2011.

When the Committee met in October 2010 to consider volume regulation for the 2011-2012 marketing year, many of the previously mentioned negative marketing conditions still persisted. Even while showing some signs of incremental improvement, the current inventories, expected production, and projected demand of Scotch spearmint oil were all at levels considered unhealthy for the industry.

The Committee estimates that the carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2011, the primary measure of excess supply, will be approximately 197,551 pounds. That quantity, while down from the previous year's high of 431,028 pounds, will still be above what the Committee considers to be optimum.

The overproduction of Scotch spearmint oil also continues to be an area of concern for the Committee. Production of Far West Scotch spearmint oil has declined from a high of 1,050,700 pounds in 2009 to 868,487 pounds in 2010, but still remains high relative to inventory levels and anticipated demand. The recent declining trend in Scotch spearmint oil production is viewed by the Committee as a positive development for the industry. However, production will need to drop further to find balance with the current levels of demand.

In addition, spearmint oil handlers indicated that demand for Scotch spearmint oil might be gaining strength. Handlers that had projected that the trade demand for Far West Scotch oil would range from a low of 750,000 pounds to a high of 850,000 pounds for the 2010-2011 marketing year, expect the trade demand to be within a range of 800,000 pounds to 900,000 pounds for the 2011-2012 period.

However, this increase in projected Scotch demand, generally thought of as a positive indicator for the industry, is viewed cautiously by some industry participants. Consumer demand for mint flavored products is reportedly steady, providing optimism for long term increases in the demand for Far West spearmint oil. Some handlers, though, believe that the manufacturers of such products are currently increasing spearmint oil purchases just to rebuild inventories that were depleted during the worst of the recent U.S. economic recession. As such, those handlers feel that at least some of the recent increase in Scotch spearmint oil sales may not represent an actual increase in sustained demand, but a temporary response to fluctuations in the strategic inventories of the manufacturers.

Still, given the moderately improving economic indicators for the Far West Scotch spearmint oil industry outlined above, the Committee took a cautiously optimistic perspective into the discussion of establishing appropriate salable quantities and allotment percentages for the upcoming season.

Therefore, at the October 13, 2010, meeting, the Committee recommended the 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity of 694,774 pounds and allotment percentage of 34 percent. The Committee utilized sales estimates for 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil, as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Scotch spearmint oil production and inventory statistics, to arrive at those recommendations. The volume control levels recommended by the Committee represent a 127,812 pound and 6 percentage point increase over the previous year's salable quantity and allotment percentage, reflecting a more positive assessment of the industry's economic conditions.

The Committee estimates that about 800,000 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil may be sold during the 2011-2012 marketing year. When considered in conjunction with the estimated carry-in of 197,551 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2011, the recommended salable quantity of 694,774 pounds results in a total available supply of approximately 892,325 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil during the 2011-2012 marketing year. The Committee estimates that carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil into the 2012-2013 marketing year, which begins June 1, 2012, will be 92,325 pounds, a decrease of 105,226 pounds from the beginning of the 2011-2012 marketing year.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulations for Scotch spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and establish orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for the proposed Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2011-2012 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.

(A)Estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011—197,551 pounds.This figure is the difference between the revised 2010-2011 marketing year total available supply of 997,551 pounds and the estimated 2010-2011 marketing year trade demand of 800,000 pounds.

(B)Estimated trade demand for the 2011-2012 marketing year—800,000 pounds.This figure is based on input from producers at six Scotch spearmint oil production area meetings held in late September and early October 2010, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the October 13, 2010, meeting. The average estimated trade demand provided at the six production area meetings is 800,000 pounds, which is 33,333 pounds less than the average of the trade demand estimates submitted by handlers. The average of Far West Scotch spearmint oil sales over the last five years is 789,243 pounds.

(C)Salable quantity required from the 2011-2012 marketing year production—602,449 pounds.This figure is the difference between the estimated 2011-2012 marketing year trade demand (800,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011 (197,551 pounds). This figure represents the minimum salable quantity that may be needed to satisfy estimated demand for the coming year with no carryover.

(D)Total estimated allotment base for the 2011-2012 marketing year—2,043,453 pounds.This figure represents a one percent increase over the revised 2010-2011 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost because of the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.

(E)Computed allotment percentage—29.5 percent.This percentage is computed by dividing the minimum required salable quantity by the total estimated allotment base.

(F)Recommended allotment percentage—34 percent.This is the Committee's recommendation and is based on the computed allotment percentage (29.5 percent), the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the six production area meetings (31 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the October 13, 2010, meeting. The actual recommendation of 34 percent is based on the Committee's determination that the computed percentage (29.5 percent) may not adequately supply the potential 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil market.

(G)The Committee's recommended salable quantity—694,774 pounds.This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage and the total estimated allotment base.

(H)Estimated available supply for the 2011-2012 marketing year—892,325 pounds.This figure is the sum of the 2011-2012 recommended salable quantity (694,774 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011 (197,551 pounds).

The Native spearmint oil industry is facing market conditions that are verysimilar to those affecting the Scotch spearmint oil market, although not nearly as severe. Over 90 percent of U.S. production of Native spearmint oil is produced within the Far West production area, thus domestic production outside this area is not a major factor in the marketing of Far West Native spearmint oil. This has been an attribute of U.S. production since the order's inception. A minor amount of domestic Native spearmint oil is produced outside of the Far West region in the States of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

According to the Committee, very little true Native spearmint oil is produced outside of the United States. However, India produces an increasing quantity of spearmint oil with qualities very similar to Native spearmint oil. Committee records show that in 1996 the Far West accounted for nearly 93 percent of the global sales of Native or Native quality spearmint oil. By 2008 that share had shrunk to a low of 48 percent. Since that point, however, the percentage has rebounded and is now estimated to be over 57 percent for 2010.

In spite of the fact that Far West Native spearmint oil has been gaining world market share, the industry has endured challenging marketing conditions over the past several marketing years. Overproduction, coupled with a decrease in demand, created a similar oversupply situation for Native spearmint oil as was previously discussed for Scotch spearmint oil. Production of Native spearmint oil in the Far West region was 701,372 pounds in 2004, but increased to 1,453,896 pounds just five years later in 2009, a 107 percent increase. In addition, over that same timeframe, demand for Native oil was moving in the opposite direction. Sales of Far West Native oil peaked in 2004 at 1,249,507 pounds. From that cyclical high, sales steadily declined over the next five years, dropping to just 976,888 pounds by 2009. As production rose and sales dropped, excess inventory of uncommitted Native spearmint oil began to accumulate. Carry-in of Native oil measured at the beginning of each marketing year, which serves as a measure of oversupply in the market, grew from 83,417 pounds at the beginning of the 2007-2008 marketing year to 343,517 pounds at the beginning of the 2010-2011 marketing year.

The Committee's response to the difficult marketing environment for Native spearmint oil over the 2008 through 2010 period was similar to the response to the situation with Scotch spearmint oil over that time, to recommend the moderate tightening of volume control regulations. The Committee, which recommended a 2008-2009 Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,178,946 pounds, maintained a similar recommendation for the 2009-2010 marketing year and then dropped its recommendation to 953,405 pounds for the 2010-2011 marketing year. Similarly, the recommended allotment percentage, which was 53 percent for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 periods, was recommended to be reduced to just 43 percent for 2010-2011.

Although improving, many of the negative marketing conditions present leading up to the 2010-2011 marketing year were still evident when the Committee met to consider volume regulation for the upcoming 2011-2012 marketing year. Carry-in of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2011, is estimated to be 216,737 pounds, down from the previous year's high of 343,517 pounds, but still at a level above what the Committee believes to be optimum.

Also, production of Native spearmint oil, while showing some signs of improvement, still remains an area of concern for the Committee. Production of Far West Native spearmint oil, which declined from a high of 1,453,896 pounds in 2009 to 1,244,361 pounds in 2010, is still considered by the Committee to be high relative to the current level of demand and the excess inventory of Native spearmint oil. However, the Committee believes that the declining trend in Native spearmint oil production may continue into the 2011 season and that much of the pressure on the industry's current oversupply situation may be relieved moving forward.

In addition to an improved supply situation, demand for Far West Native spearmint oil appears to have halted its downward movement and is expected to improve in the coming year. Spearmint oil handlers, who projected that the 2010-2011 trade demand for Far West Native spearmint oil would range from a low of 1,050,000 pounds to a high of 1,200,000 pounds, have increased their projections modestly for the 2011-2012 period to a range of 1,100,000 pounds to 1,200,000 pounds.

However, similar to Scotch spearmint oil, the small increase in projected Native spearmint oil demand, generally thought of as a positive indicator for the industry, is viewed by some handlers with caution. As mentioned previously, consumer demand for mint flavored products is expected to be steady or increase slightly moving forward, which provides optimism for long term improvement in the demand for Far West spearmint oil. Some handlers, though, have reported that the manufacturers of such products may just be temporarily increasing purchases of spearmint oil to rebuild inventories that were depleted during the worst of the current U.S. economic recession. As such, the handlers believe that at least some of the recent increase in purchases do not represent an actual increase in sustained demand but, rather, a short term response to fluctuations in the strategic inventories of the manufacturers.

Given the moderately improving economic indicators for the Far West Native spearmint oil industry outlined above, the Committee took a cautiously optimistic perspective into the discussion of establishing appropriate salable quantities and allotment percentages for the upcoming season.

As such, at the October 13, 2010, meeting, the Committee recommended a 2011-2012 Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,012,983 pounds and an allotment percentage of 44 percent. The Committee utilized sales estimates for 2011-2012 Native spearmint oil, as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Native spearmint oil market statistics to establish these thresholds. The recommended volume control levels represent a 32,763 pound and a 1 percentage point increase over the previous year's salable quantity and allotment percentage. Even with these increases in the salable quantity and allotment percentages, the carry-in at the beginning of the 2012-2013 marketing year is projected to drop by 117,018 pounds.

The Committee estimates that approximately 1,130,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil may be sold during the 2011-2012 marketing year. When considered in conjunction with the estimated carry-in of 216,737 pounds of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2011, the recommended salable quantity of 1,012,983 pounds results in a total available supply of about 1,229,719 pounds of Native spearmint oil during the 2011-2012 marketing year. The Committee estimates that carry-in of Native spearmint oil at the beginning of the 2012-2013 marketing year to be 99,719 pounds, a significant reduction from the previous year's level of 216,737 pounds.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulations for Native spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and establish orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for the proposedNative spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2011-2012 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.

(A)Estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011—216,737 pounds.This figure is the difference between the revised 2010-2011 marketing year total available supply of 1,323,737 pounds and the estimated 2010-2011 marketing year trade demand of 1,107,000 pounds.

(B)Estimated trade demand for the 2011-2012 marketing year—1,130,000 pounds.This estimate is established by the Committee and is based on input from producers at the seven Native spearmint oil production area meetings held in late September and early October 2010, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the October 13, 2010, meeting. The average estimated trade demand provided at the seven production area meetings was 1,130,238 pounds, whereas the handler estimate ranged from 1,100,000 pounds to 1,200,000 pounds.

(C)Salable quantity required from the 2011-2012 marketing year production—913,263 pounds.This figure is the difference between the estimated 2011-2012 marketing year trade demand (1,130,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011 (216,737 pounds). This is the minimum amount that the Committee believes will be required to meet the anticipated 2011-2012 Native spearmint oil trade demand.

(D)Total estimated allotment base for the 2011-2012 marketing year—2,302,233 pounds.This figure represents a one percent increase over the revised 2010-2011 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost due to the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.

(E)Computed allotment percentage—39.7 percent.This percentage is computed by dividing the required salable quantity (913,263 pounds) by the total estimated allotment base (2,302,233 pounds).

(F)Recommended allotment percentage—44 percent.This is the Committee's recommendation based on the computed allotment percentage (39.7 percent), the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the seven production area meetings (39.7 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the October 13, 2010, meeting. The actual recommendation of 44 percent is based on the Committee's determination that the computed percentage (39.7 percent) may not adequately supply the potential 2011-2012 Native spearmint oil market.

(G)The Committee's recommended salable quantity—1,012,983 pounds.This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage (44 percent) and the total estimated allotment base (2,302,233 pounds).

(H)Estimated available supply for the 2011-2012 marketing year—1,229,720 pounds.This figure is the sum of the 2011-2012 recommended salable quantity (1,012,983 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2011 (216,737 pounds).

The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a marketing year. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.

The Committee's recommended Scotch and Native spearmint oil salable quantities and allotment percentages of 694,774 pounds and 34 percent, and 1,012,983 pounds and 44 percent, respectively, are based on the goal of establishing and maintaining market stability. The Committee anticipates that this goal will be achieved by matching the available supply of each class of Spearmint oil to the estimated demand of such, thus avoiding extreme fluctuations in inventories and prices.

The salable quantities established by this action are not expected to cause a shortage of spearmint oil supplies. However, any unanticipated or additional market demand for spearmint oil which might develop during the marketing year could be satisfied by an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity. The order makes this provision for intra-seasonal increases to allow the Committee the flexibility to respond quickly to changing market conditions. In addition, producers who produce more than their annual allotments during the 2011-2012 marketing year may transfer such excess spearmint oil to producers who produce less than their annual allotment or, up until November 1, 2011, place it into the reserve pool to be released in the future in accordance with market needs.

This regulation is similar to regulations issued in prior seasons. The average allotment percentage for the five most recent marketing years for Scotch spearmint oil is 42 percent, while the average allotment percentage for the same five-year period for Native spearmint oil is 51 percent. The increased costs to producers and handlers as a result of this rule are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from a stable market and improved returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this final rule, USDA has reviewed the Committee's marketing policy statement for the 2011-2012 marketing year. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends volume regulation, fully meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order.

During its discussion of potential 2011-2012 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders″ has also been reviewed and confirmed.

The salable quantities and allotment percentages established in this final rule allow for the anticipated needs of the market. In determining anticipated market needs, consideration by the Committee was given to historical sales, as well as changes and trends in production and demand. This rule also provides producers with information on the amount of spearmint oil that should be produced for the 2011-2012 season in order to meet anticipated market demand.

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

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order,and approximately 38 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 84 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that 2 of the 8 handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 19 of the 38 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 84 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, a majority of spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses.

Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and as such are more at risk from market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual allotment and do not have the luxury of having other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable price and market provides small producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses. Thus, the market and price stability provided by the order potentially benefit the small producer more than such provisions benefit large producers. Even though a majority of handlers and producers of spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities, the volume control feature of this order has small entity orientation.

This final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year. The Committee recommended this rule to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market by matching supply to estimated demand thereby avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices. Establishing quantities to be purchased or handled during the marketing year through volume regulations allows producers to plan their spearmint planting and harvesting to meet expected market needs. The provisions of §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order authorize this volume regulation.

Instability in the spearmint oil sub-sector of the mint industry is much more likely to originate on the supply side than the demand side. Fluctuations in yield and acreage planted from season-to-season tend to be larger than fluctuations in the amount purchased by handlers. Demand for spearmint oil tends to be relatively stable from year-to-year. The demand for spearmint oil is expected to grow slowly for the foreseeable future because the demand for consumer products that use spearmint oil will likely expand slowly, in line with population growth.

Demand for spearmint oil at the farm level is derived from retail demand for spearmint-flavored products such as chewing gum, toothpaste, and mouthwash. The manufacturers of these products are by far the largest users of mint oil. However, spearmint flavoring is generally a very minor component of the products in which it is used, so changes in the raw product price have virtually no impact on retail prices for those goods.

Spearmint oil production tends to be cyclical. Years of relatively high production, with demand remaining reasonably stable, have led to periods in which large producer stocks of unsold spearmint oil have depressed producer prices for a number of years. Shortages and high prices may follow in subsequent years, as producers respond to price signals by cutting back production.

The significant variability of the spearmint oil market is illustrated by the fact that the coefficient of variation (a standard measure of variability; “CV″) of Far West spearmint oil production from 1980 through 2009 was about 0.23. The CV for spearmint oil grower prices was about 0.16 for that period, well below the CV for production. This provides an indication of the price stabilizing impact of the marketing order.

Production in the shortest marketing year was about 48 percent of the 30-year average (1.89 million pounds from 1980 through 2009) and the largest crop was approximately 163 percent of the 30-year average. A key consequence is that in years of oversupply and low prices the season average producer price of spearmint oil is below the average cost of production (as measured by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service.)

The wide fluctuations in supply and prices that result from this cycle, which was even more pronounced before the creation of the order, can create liquidity problems for some producers. The order was designed to reduce the price impacts of the cyclical swings in production. However, producers have been less able to weather these cycles in recent years because of the increase in production costs. While prices have been relatively steady, the cost of production has increased to the extent that plans to plant spearmint may be postponed or changed indefinitely. Producers are also enticed by the prices of alternative crops and their lower cost of production.

In an effort to stabilize prices, the spearmint oil industry uses the volume control mechanisms authorized under the order. This authority allows the Committee to recommend a salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of oil for the upcoming marketing year. The salable quantity for each class of oil is the total volume of oil that producers may sell during the marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total allotment base.

Each producer is then issued an annual allotment certificate, in pounds, for the applicable class of oil, which is calculated by multiplying the producer's allotment base by the applicable allotment percentage. This is the amount of oil of each applicable class that the producer can sell.

By November 1 of each year, the Committee identifies any oil that individual producers have produced above the volume specified on their annual allotment certificates. This excess oil is placed in a reserve pool administered by the Committee.

There is a reserve pool for each class of oil that may not be sold during the current marketing year unless USDA approves a Committee recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for a class of oil and make a portion of the pool available. However, limited quantities of reserve oil are typically sold by one producer to another producer to fill deficiencies. A deficiency occurs when on-farm production is less than a producer's allotment. In that case, a producer's own reserve oil can be sold to fill that deficiency. Excess production (higher than the producer's allotment) can be sold to fill other producers' deficiencies. All of these provisions need to be exercised prior to November 1 of each year.

In any given year, the total available supply of spearmint oil is composed of current production plus carry-over stocks from the previous crop. The Committee seeks to maintain market stability by balancing supply and demand, and to close the marketing year with an appropriate level of carryout. If the industry has production in excess of the salable quantity, then the reserve pool absorbs the surplus quantity of spearmint oil, which goes unsold during that year, unless the oil is needed for unanticipated sales.

Under its provisions, the order may attempt to stabilize prices by (1) limiting supply and establishing reserves in high production years, thus minimizing the price-depressing effect that excess producer stocks have on unsold spearmint oil, and (2) ensuring that stocks are available in short supply years when prices would otherwise increase dramatically. The reserve pool stocks, which are increased in large production years, are drawn down in years where the crop is short.

An econometric model was used to assess the impact that volume control has on the prices producers receive for their commodity. Without volume control, spearmint oil markets would likely be over-supplied, resulting in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to the next crop year. The model estimates how much lower producer prices would likely be in the absence of volume controls.

The Committee estimated the trade demand for the 2011-2012 marketing year for both classes of oil at 1,930,000 pounds, and that the expected combined carry-in will be 414,288 pounds. This results in a combined required salable quantity of 1,515,712 pounds. With volume control, sales by producers for the 2011-2012 marketing year will be limited to 1,707,757 pounds (the salable quantity for both classes of spearmint oil).

The allotment percentages, upon which 2011-2012 producer allotments are based, are 34 percent for Scotch and 44 percent for Native. Without volume controls, producers would not be limited to these allotment levels, and could produce and sell additional spearmint. The econometric model estimated a $1.89 decline in the season average producer price per pound (from both classes of spearmint oil) resulting from the higher quantities that would be produced and marketed without volume control. The surplus situation in the spearmint oil market that would exist without volume controls in 2011-2012 also would likely dampen prospects for improved producer prices in future years because of the buildup in stocks.

The use of volume controls allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. The use of volume controls is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and will not result in fewer retail sales of such products.

The Committee discussed alternatives to the recommendations contained in this rule for both classes of spearmint oil. The Committee discussed and rejected the idea of recommending that there not be any volume regulation for both classes of spearmint oil because of the severe price-depressing effects that would occur without volume control.

After computing the initial 29.5 percent Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage, the Committee considered various alternative levels of volume control for Scotch spearmint oil. Considered levels ranged from 30 percent to 40 percent. Given the moderately improving marketing conditions for spearmint oil, there was consensus that the allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil for 2011-2012 marketing year should be more than the percentage established for 2010-2011 (28 percent). After considerable discussion, in a vote of six members in favor and two members opposed, the Committee determined that 694,774 pounds and 34 percent is the most effective salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2011-2012 marketing year. The two dissenting members felt that the salable quantity and allotment percentage should be set at some unidentified higher level.

The Committee was also able to reach a consensus regarding the level of volume control for Native spearmint oil. After first determining the computed allotment percentage at 39.7 percent, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend 1,012,983 pounds and 44 percent for the effective salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2011-2012 marketing year.

As noted earlier, the Committee's recommendation to establish salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of spearmint oil was made after careful consideration of all available information, including: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Based on its review, the Committee believes that the salable quantity and allotment percentage levels recommended will achieve the objectives sought.

If there were no regulations in effect for the coming marketing year, the Committee believes that the industry would return to the pronounced cyclical price patterns that occurred prior to the order, and that prices in 2011-2012 would decline substantially below current levels.

According to the Committee, the established salable quantities and allotment percentages are expected to facilitate the goal of establishing orderly marketing conditions for Far West spearmint oil.

As previously stated, annual salable quantities and allotment percentages have been issued for both classes of spearmint oil since the order's inception. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements have remained the same for each year of regulation. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers or handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Furthermore, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

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

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 13, 2010, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in theFederal Registeron March 4, 2011 (76 FR 11971). Copies of the rule were provided to Committee staff, which in turn made it available to all Far West spearmint oil producers, handlers, and interested persons. Finally, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending April 4, 2011, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously mentioned address in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On February 11, 2011 (76 FR 8222), SBA issued a Final Rule, publicly available athttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/pdf/2011-2581.pdf.In that document, SBA made changes to the regulations governing the 8(a) BD program regulations, its small business size regulations, and regulations affecting Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs). Some of the changes involve technical issues. Other changes are more substantive and result from SBA's experience in implementing 8(a) BD program regulations. One change is the addition of new reporting requirements for 8(a) Participants. Specifically, the final rule requires those 8(a) Participants owned by ANCs, tribes, NHOs, and CDCs to submit overall information relating to how 8(a) participation has benefited the tribal or native members and/or the tribal, native or other community as part of each Participant's annual review submissions, including information about funding cultural programs, employment assistance, jobs, scholarships, internships, subsistence activities, and other services to the affected community.

SBA received several comments recommending it delay implementation of any reporting of benefits requirement to allow affected firms to gather and synthesize this data. In addition, these commenters encouraged SBA to establish a task force, comprised of native leaders and SBA, to further study how this requirement could be best implemented without imposing an undue burden on tribes, ANCs, NHOs or CDCs, or on their affected 8(a) Participants. SBA agreed and delayed implementation of new § 124.604 for six months after the effective date for the other provisions of the final rule. These tribal consultations are for the purpose of developing best practices for collecting and utilizing the data. SBA expects that two Participants owned by the same tribe, ANC, NHO or CDC will submit identical data describing the benefits provided by the tribe, ANC, NHO or CDC.

The purpose of these tribal consultation meetings is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments″; to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss the 8(a) BD program regulatory changes; and for SBA to obtain the comments of SBA's stakeholders on approaches to tracking community benefits. In addition to general oral and written comments about 8(a) BD program provisions, SBA is requesting oral and written comments on approaches to tracking community benefits as required by the 8(a) BD program regulations. SBA considers tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that these tribal consultation meetings will allow for constructive dialogue with the tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Elders and elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives.

The format of these tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony.

SBA requests that the comments address possible formats which the information should be transmitted to SBA and whether the data should be submitted at the time of the annual review (Participant's anniversary) or if another time in the year, such as the fiscal or calendar year, is better. In order to better report the data SBA is considering revisions to SBA Form 1450 for uniform reporting. One method SBA is considering is using a data list supported by a narrative format. The list would comprise of hard data and a narrative explaining the significance in benefits flowing to the community. SBA requests that commenters discuss the proposed methodology and offer any alternatives.

SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of the tribal consultation is to discuss changes to the new reporting requirements for 8(a) BD program Participants owned by tribes, ANCs, NHOs and CDCs with the tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Elders and elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives and to seek their comments on approaches to tracking community benefits. SBA requests that the comments focus on the new regulatory changes as stated in the Agency's Final Rule and commenters not raise issues pertaining to other SBA small business programs.

Presenters may provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.

The tribal consultation meetings will be held for half a day. The Milwaukee meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. The Anchorage meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.

SBA respectfully requests that an elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities that are interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests should be received by SBA by June 8, 2011 at 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) for Milwaukee and June 16, 2011 at 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) for Anchorage. Please contact Ms. Chequita Carter in SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing atChequita.Carter@sba.govor by facsimile at (202) 205-6139.

If you are interested in testifying, please include the following information relating to the person testifying: Name, Organization affiliation, Address, Telephone number, E-mail address and Fax number. SBA will attempt to accommodate all interested parties who wish to present testimony. Based on the number of registrants, it may be necessary to impose time limits to ensure that everyone who wishes to testify has the opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm in writing the registration of presenters and attendees.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Ms. Chequita Carter at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection of this notice.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12627). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The MCAI covers Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Models DA 40 and DA 40F, DA 42, DA 42 NG, and DA 42 M-NG airplanes. Before the FAA received the MCAI, on November 23, 2010, we issued AD 2010-25-01, Amendment 39-16534 (75 FR 75868, December 7, 2010), as a unilateral action to address this unsafe condition on Models DA 40 and DA 40F airplanes. Since AD 2010-25-01 already addresses this unsafe condition on Models DA 40 and DA 40F airplanes, we are not including those models in this AD.

Before we issued AD 2010-25-01, we received a comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) requesting that, due to common operating practice of leaving the front canopy open during taxi operations, the front canopy latch sensor be disconnected from the `door open' annunciation. This would allow illumination only when the rear door was not properly latched to alert the pilot to the unsafe condition. In that NPRM, the FAA stated that further analysis was being done.

At this time, we believe the actions required in AD 2010-25-01 adequately address the unsafe condition on Models DA 40 and DA 40F airplanes and the similar actions in this AD address the unsafe condition on Models DA 42, DA 42-NG, and DA 42 M-NG airplanes.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 162 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $71 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $39,042 or $241 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action″ under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0054, dated March 24, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI″), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-92A1072, including Appendix 01, dated March 13, 2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a discrepant terminal module could potentially result in an in-flight failure of the EFCS, resulting in loss of control of the airplane. In addition, a discrepant terminal module could lead to latent failure of the passenger oxygen supply, and consequent loss of oxygen supply to the masks in the event of an emergency. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0390; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-064-AD″ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 87-20-03 R2, Amendment 39-6669 (55 FR 36264, September 5, 1990; published as Docket No. 86-CE-71-AD, Amdt. 39-6669). That AD applies to the specified products. AD 87-20-03 R2 requires repetitive inspections and replacement of parts, if necessary, of the seat rail and seat rail holes; seat pin engagement; seat rollers, washers, and axle bolts or bushings; wall thickness of roller housing and the tang; and lock pin springs. The NPRM published in theFederal Registeron November 8, 2010 (75 FR 68543). That NPRM proposed to retain all of the actions from the previous AD and add steps to the inspection procedures in the previous AD.

The additional steps involve inspections of the tang thickness and length on the seat roller housing. We also provided improved graphics for inspecting seat track hole wear and for inspecting proper seat lock pin engagement depth. We itemized the steps, in sequence, to provide clearer guidance for the inspector to do the inspections.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.

D.A., Ken Anderson, Don Barley, Timothy J. Berg, Joseph Carter, Gary W. Cleveland, Clifford Coy, Al Dyer, John M. Efinger, Greg Felton, Berry Gablin, Howard Greenberg, Steve James, Richard Koril, Michael Minton, Dustin J. Radford, Marc Stancy, Charles L. Trunck, and Walter Wasowski requested we change the inspection compliance time to annual inspections. They think that 100-hour time-in-service inspections are an excessive burden on manpower and an added expense with little benefit in safety. They also think the frequent inspections would be difficult to monitor.

We disagree with this comment. The unsafe condition of excessive wear results from usage, not calendar time. The more an airplane is used, the more likely wear will develop, causing an unsafe condition. Parts cost will not be incurred unless the inspection results require parts replacement. FAA regulations require posting compliance to ADs in the aircraft logbook. The maintainer should record compliance with this AD, which includes the 100-hour inspections, in the aircraft logbook.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Joseph Carter, Greg Felton, Donald L. Griffith, and Richard M. Warner requested we change the applicability based on the installation of inertial reel secondary seat stops. They think that if the primary seat lock fails and the seat slips, the secondary seat stops provide additional safety.

We partially agree with this comment. We agree that the secondary seat stop provides additional safety for seat slippage. However, we disagree that secondary seat stops provide adequate safety for the unsafe condition associated with this AD action. The secondary seat stops may be installed only on one side of the airplane, so the pilot could occupy a seat without a secondary seat stop. Also, secondary seat stops will not prevent the seat from lifting off the seat track.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Mark Stancy requested we remove Cessna Models 150, 152, and 188 from the airplane Applicability. He thinks the seat travel for those models is too limited to justify this AD even if the locking pin were to slip.

We disagree with this comment. Even a limited seat travel could affect short pilots' ability to reach the controls if the seat slips backwards due to failure of the seat system. This AD action not only requires inspections to prevent seat slippage but also requires inspections to prevent the seat from lifting off the seat track.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

David Abler, Brian A. Andrus, James Barbee, Timothy J. Berg, Al Dyer, John M. Efinger, Berry Gamblin, Donald L. Giffith, Michael Minton, Robert J. Pasch, Dustin J. Radford, Charles L. Trunck, and Walter Wasowski requested we withdraw the proposed AD action because they think it adds no additional safety than AD 87-20-03 R2.

We disagree with this comment. This AD action provides additional measurements in the inspections, more clarity in the descriptions of the required inspections, and provides improved graphics. Inadvertent seat movement continues to be reported. Also, we received a report of a seat separating from the seat track due to wear of the seat roller housing tangs.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

One commenter requested we add an inspection of the seat stop with diagrams showing potential damage because if the integrity of the seat stop is retained, seat slippage will not occur. The commenter also requested we not allow repair to the seat roller housing.

We partially agree with this comment. We agree the seat stop should prevent seat slippage; however, other failure modes can cause seat slippage even with a functional seat stop. Providingdiagrams of possible damage to the seat stop area will not sufficiently eliminate the safety issue. Service history has shown that wear and damage to the seat installation components must be addressed. This AD action provides clarification to the inspections for those components.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Dave McFarlane requested we add a maximum allowable incremental 0.07-inch radius dimension to figure 1 at the outside diameter dimensions for clarification.

We disagree with this comment. The measurement dimensions in figure 1 adequately address the measurements necessary for this AD. Additional measurements will not provide any additional benefit.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Joseph Carter requested we change the compliance time for the inspection for seats that are moved infrequently because they would not experience the same amount of wear on the seat components.

We disagree with this comment. Inspectors would not be able to determine the frequency seat movement.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Brian A. Andrus, Jim Currie, and Jerry Unruh requested we change the tang measurement to the outside of the seat roller housing and change the description of the tang measurement. This change would make it easier for the inspector to take the measurement and to better understand what is being measured.

We agree with this comment. We agree that measuring the tang length inside of the roller housing is difficult because of the presence of the rollers inside of the roller housing.

We have changed the callouts in figure 4 to measure the tang length from outside of the roller housing instead of from inside of the roller housing. We have also changed the description of the tang measurement in figure 4 to more accurately describe the measurement.

Robert J. Pasch requested we better describe the changes or added steps to the inspections from AD 87-20-03 R2 so the owner/operator can better understand the requirements of this new AD action.

We agree with this comment. We retained all of the actions from the previous AD and added steps to the inspection. This AD action must be complied with in its entirety, not just the added steps. This AD action includes better descriptions and graphics for the mechanic to follow when complying with this AD. We have added language to the Discussion section describing in more detail the changes we made in this superseding AD action.

Howard Greenberg requested different requirements for new seat rail installations.

We disagree with this comment. Documentation positively identifying that all seat assemblies and associated parts were replaced would be difficult to obtain. If documentation positively identifying replacement of the seat assemblies and associated parts can be found, the FAA will consider any applications we receive for an alternative method of compliance to extend the compliance time for the initial inspection.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comments.

David Abler, Ken Anderson, and Timothy J. Berg requested we provide a means to educate the pilots on proper operation of the seats rather than take AD action.

We disagree with this comment. Wear and damage can occur, which may not be visibly recognizable by the pilot, and may cause the seat to slip even after proper engagement of the locking pin. In addition, many sources exist to educate those involved about this unsafe condition, including Advisory Circular 43-16A, Aviation Maintenance Alerts, found on the Internet athttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage;Special Aviation Information Bulletin, SAIB CE-09-10, Availability of Secondary Seat Stops for Pilot and Copilot Seats found on the Internet athttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage; Safety Alerts for Operators, SAFO 10016, Missing or Improper Seat Stops in Cessna Models found on the Internet athttp://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/; and other related articles in Cessna Pilots Association Magazine. In spite of the sources of information regarding the necessity for proper maintenance and proper operations of the seats, inadvertent seat movement continues to be a safety issue.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

An anonymous commenter requested we require verifying the seat stop pin engagement still meets the 0.150 inch criteria after replacement of parts as a result of any of the required inspections.

We disagree with this comment. The intent of this inspection is to detect wear or deformation. Any part used as a replacement part must be serviceable and not show signs of wear or deformation. Also, this inspection is a repetitive inspection at intervals not to exceed every 100 hours time-in-service.

We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

John M. Conti agrees with this AD action. He states the added procedures and criteria are good and must be done during annual inspections so the extra detail is a small price to pay that will further reduce this risk.

We have not changed this final rule AD action based on this comment.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously to change the tang length measurement location to outside of the seat roller housing and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 36,000 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative costs associated with AD 87-20-03 R2. The required actions of this AD are the sameas in AD 87-20-03 R2 with the exception of some added steps to the inspection, which do not increase work-hours. The increased estimated cost of this AD is due to increased labor cost and parts cost from 1987 when AD 87-20-03 R2 was issued.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA received information on two incidents where Piaggio Model P-180 airplanes had water accumulation in the belly of the fuselage that froze and caused the flight controls to jam. On December 20, 2010, we issued Emergency AD 2011-01-53, amendment 39-16582 (76 FR 4056, January 24, 2011) to require an immediate functional test of the fuselage drain holes and a report of the results to the FAA. It also allows, with noted exceptions, for the return/position of the airplane to a home base, hangar, maintenance facility, etc.

Since we issued AD 2011-01-53, another Piaggio P-180 airplane experienced jamming of the flight control cables also due to water accumulating and freezing in the lower fuselage area. This event happened after this airplane had complied with AD 2011-01-53, noting no problems with the fuselage drain system.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2011-0074-E, dated April 22, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI″), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A has issued Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0330, dated April 21, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might have also required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over those copied from the MCAI.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because water may accumulate in the belly of the fuselage and freeze, which may cause the flight controls to jam. This condition may lead to loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0468; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-013-AD″ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 102 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $78,030, or $765 per product.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action″ under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron January 25, 2011 (76 FR 4260), and proposed to supersede AD 2007-04-11, Amendment 39-14943 (72 FR 8604, February 27, 2007); AD 2007-20-03, Amendment 39-15213 (72 FR 54536, September 26, 2007); and AD 2007-25-02, Amendment 39-15283 (72 FR 69612, December 10, 2007). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The required actions include revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect about 206 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2007-04-11, AD 2007-20-03, and AD 2007-25-02, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 1 work hour per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of those actions on U.S. operators to be $85 per product.

We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $17,510, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron February 16, 2011 (76 FR 8919), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-24-08, Amendment 39-16527 (75 FR 71530, November 24, 2010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

In AD 2010-24-08, we pointed out that the corresponding EASA AD, AD 2010-0208-E, dated October 12, 2010, requires painting the pipes end of the emergency brake system number 2 and related unions within 7 months after the effective date of that AD. We explained that AD 2010-24-08 did not require that action, and that we might consider additional rulemaking to require this action in the future. We have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary to require that action, and this AD follows from that determination.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will affect about 248 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2010-24-08 and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.

We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $21,080, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

I. Background

CPSC regulations, at 16 CFR part 1512, establish requirements for bicycles pursuant to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The regulations were first promulgated in 1978 (43 FR 60034 (Dec. 22, 1978)), with minor amendments in 1980 (45 FR 82627 (Dec. 16, 1980)), 1981 (46 FR 3204 (Jan. 14, 1981)), 1995 (60 FR 62990 (Dec. 8, 1995)), and 2003 (68 FR 7073 (Feb. 12, 2003)); 68 FR 52691 (Sept. 5, 2003)).

In recent years, there have been technological changes in bicycle design and in the materials used to manufacture bicycles that have caused some bicycle manufacturers to question the applicability of a particular CPSC regulation or to seek changes to the regulations. Additionally, the enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016, has resulted in new testing and certification requirements for children's products. The Commission recognizes that there have been many changes in bicycletechnology, material, and design since the bicycle regulations were promulgated. The Commission intends to undertake a comprehensive review of the bicycle regulations at a future point to determine how these regulations might be further amended to address the changes that have taken place.

In theFederal Registerof November 1, 2010 (75 FR 67043), we issued a proposed rule that would amend 16 CFR part 1512. The proposed rule would make minor changes to the existing regulations to reflect new technologies, designs and features in bicycles by clarifying that certain provisions or testing requirements do not apply to specific bicycles or bicycle parts. The proposal also would clarify several ambiguous and confusing provisions, correct typographical errors, and delete an outdated reference.

The proposed rule also was intended to facilitate the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2063, as amended by section 102 of the CPSIA. Section 14 of the CPSA requires manufacturers and private labelers of a product subject to a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or regulation to certify compliance of the product with such rule, ban, standard, or regulation. Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires that certifications for nonchildren's products be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program. Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certifications for children's products be based on tests conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (also commonly referred to as a third party laboratory or simply as a laboratory). Under section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA, the requirement to third-party test children's products applies to products manufactured more than 90 days after the CPSC has established and published notice of the requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a particular rule. In theFederal Registerof September 2, 2009 (74 FR 45428), the CPSC published a notice of the requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with 16 CFR part 1512.

However, in theFederal Registerof February 9, 2009 (74 FR 6396), the Commission published a notice announcing that it had stayed, for one year, the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA as applied to 16 CFR part 1512, and most other CPSC regulations. The stay was intended to give the CPSC time to address many issues raised by the CPSIA's testing and certification requirements (Id.at 6397). Later, in theFederal Registerof December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68588), the Commission published a notice that revised the terms of the stay. The Commission maintained the stay on the testing and certification requirements for the bicycle regulations until May 17, 2010, because there was insufficient laboratory capacity for third party testing of bicycles at that time (Id.at 68590). The Commission invited bicycle manufacturers and laboratories to petition the Commission for additional relief if the extension of the stay proved insufficient.

On April 1, 2010, the Bicycle Products Suppliers Association (BPSA), which describes itself as an association of suppliers of bicycles, parts, accessories, and services who serve specialty bicycle retailers, petitioned the Commission for an additional extension of the stay. (The petition can be found athttp://www.regulations.govby searching for the docket number for this rulemaking.) The BPSA contended that there still was insufficient laboratory capacity to handle testing of children's bicycles. It also asserted that 16 CFR part 1512 is out of date in many respects, stated its understanding that the CPSC may commence rulemaking to revise part 1512 in the near future, and urged the Commission to begin such rulemaking. The BPSA suggested that the Commission maintain the stay on testing and certification of bicycles until such a rulemaking concludes, or for an additional year.

On May 3, 2010, CPSC staff met with representatives of the BPSA to discuss the petition. (A summary of the meeting can be found athttp://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/meetings/mtg10/bpsa102.pdf.) On June 17, 2010, the Commission published a notice in theFederal Registerextending the stay on testing and certification requirements for bicycles until August 14, 2010, with two exceptions (75 FR 34360). First, because laboratory capacity, at that time, was still insufficient to assess compliance with the reflector requirements at 16 CFR 1512.16, the Commission extended the stay as it related to bicycle reflectors, until November 14, 2010 (Id.). The Commission allowed the additional three-month period for the development of CPSC-accepted laboratory capacity for bicycle reflector testing. Second, the Commission excluded bicycles with nonquill-type stems from the requirement to certify compliance with the handlebar stem insertion mark requirement at 16 CFR 1512.6(a); bicycles with nonquill-type stems may not be able to comply with the insertion mark requirement.

(A stem is the part of a bicycle that connects the handlebars to the “steerer″ or upper part of the bicycle fork [the part of the bicycle that holds the front wheel and can turn to steer the bicycle]. A quill-type stem is a stem that is inserted into the steerer. Most older bicycles use a quill-type stem, but newer bicycles may use other means to connect the stem to the fork. For example, a “threadless″ stem clamps onto the outside of the steerer [rather than having the stem go inside the steerer], and so we will refer to such other types of stems as “nonquill-type stems.″)

In its letter responding to the BPSA's petition, the Commission communicated its decision to extend the stay until August 14, 2010, with the two exceptions for reflector testing and stems. We stated that we are aware that 16 CFR part 1512 does not adequately address some new technologies, designs, or materials, and we asked that manufacturers who believe that they are unable to certify current designs to 16 CFR part 1512 provide the Commission with specific information regarding which provisions of the current regulations are problematic, which models or classes of bicycles are affected, and an explanation of the issue.

In response, on June 4, 2010, the BPSA sent a chart to the CPSC identifying areas in the bicycle regulations that the BPSA considered problematic for certification. This chart differed slightly from a chart that the BPSA had provided informally to CPSC staff earlier in 2010. We considered both charts in the process of developing the proposed rule. (Both charts can be found athttp://www.regulations.govby searching for the docket number for this rulemaking.)

Consequently, in theFederal Registerof November 1, 2010 (75 FR 67043), we published a notice of proposed rulemaking recommending several changes to the bicycle regulations meant to address some of the issues raised by the BPSA, and ease the burden on bicycle manufacturers by exempting specific bicycles or bicycle parts from certain requirements, clarifying ambiguous and confusing provisions, correcting several typographical errors and deleting an outdated provision. The preamble to the proposed rule also acknowledged that bicycle technologies, designs, and features have changed dramatically since 16 CFR part 1512 was originally promulgated, but stated that we cannot conduct a comprehensive review of the bicycleregulations in the timeframe that is necessary for implementing the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA (75 FR at 67044). Accordingly, the proposed rule would make only limited amendments to 16 CFR part 1512 to facilitate testing and certification of bicycles in accordance with section 14 of the CPSA. The Commission is staying testing and certification requirements for bicycle reflectors until November 14, 2011 because there currently are no CPSC-recognized laboratories that can test for compliance with the reflector requirements at 16 CFR 1512.16.

We received 13 comments to the proposed rule. We received comments from individuals, a bicycle manufacturer and retailer, a consumer advocacy organization, and the BPSA. In brief, several commenters supported the rule whereas other commenters either sought a more comprehensive review of the bicycle regulations or opposed the rule because we had not conducted a more comprehensive review of the bicycle regulations. Other commenters sought changes that were specific to certain bicycle parts, such as brakes and clipless pedals. Several commenters addressed topics that were outside the scope of the rulemaking, such as suggesting changes to information on the CPSC's Web site.

We describe and respond to the comments in section II of this document and also describe the final rule. To make it easier to identify the comments and our responses, the word “Comment,″ in parentheses, will appear before the comment's description, and the word “Response,″ in parentheses, will appear before our response. We also have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value, or importance, or the order in which it was received.

The existing regulation, at § 1512.2(b), defines a “sidewalk bicycle″ as “a bicycle with a seat height of no more than 635 mm (25.0 in); the seat height is measured with the seat adjusted to its highest position.″ The proposed rule would amend the definition of sidewalk bicycle by adding a sentence stating that recumbent bicycles are not considered sidewalk bicycles. Although some recumbent bicycles may have seats below the 635 millimeter height, recumbent bicycles do not share other features, or the intended riders, of sidewalk bicycles. This will have the effect of clarifying which requirements are applicable to recumbent bicycles, which were not available when the standard was first promulgated.

We received no comments on this provision and have finalized it without change.

The existing regulation, at § 1512.2(d), defines a “track bicycle″ as “a bicycle designed and intended for sale as a competitive machine having tubular tires, single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no free-wheeling feature between the rear wheel and the crank.″ Track bicycles are not subject to the requirements of 16 CFR part 1512. The proposed rule would amend the definition of track bicycle to further clarify which bicycles are not subject to the regulations. The proposed rule recommended adding the word “velodrome″ between “competitive″ and “machine,″ to clarify that a track bicycle is one intended for competitive velodrome racing. (A “velodrome″ is an arena that has a banked track for bicycle racing.)

The proposed rule also recommended deleting the term “tubular tires.″ Improvements in clincher tires in recent years permit their use on track bicycles; therefore, a definition restricted to bicycles with tubular tires is no longer accurate and would have the effect of subjecting track bicycles with clincher tires to the regulations. (In very general terms, clincher tires are the type of tires associated with most bicycles and feature an inner tube and an outer tire that makes contact with the rims of a bicycle wheel at each edge [called a “bead″]. Tubular tires, in contrast, do not have edges that contact the rim; instead, tubular tires are attached to the rims using glue or tape.)

(Comment 1)—One commenter suggested that we consider whether track bicycles need or should have a braking system.

(Response 1)—Track bicycles, which are used by professionals in competitive racing, do not have brakes. Thus, in the final rule, we have revised the definition to state that a track bicycle is “a bicycle designed and intended for sale as a competitive velodrome machine having no brake levers or calipers, single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no free-wheeling feature between the rear wheel and the crank.″

Proposed § 1512.2(g) would define a recumbent bicycle as “a bicycle in which the rider sits in a reclined position with the feet extended forward to the pedals.″

We received no comments on this provision and have finalized it without change.

Section 1512.4 establishes various mechanical requirements for bicycles. Section 1512.4(b) prohibits “unfinished sheared metal edges or other sharp parts on bicycles that are, or may be, exposed to hands or legs.″ The proposed rule would add the word, “assembled″ before “bicycles,″ to clarify that the prohibition on sharp edges does not apply to a bicycle still needing assembly when it is delivered to the consumer or retail store. Unassembled bicycles may contain sharp edges that are not present when the product is fully assembled.

The proposed rule also would correct a typographical error in § 1512.4(b). The wording should be, “burrs or spurs,″ rather than, “burrs of spurs,″ so that the sentence reads, “so as to remove any feathering of edges, or any burrs or spurs caused during the shearing process.″

Section 1512.4(i) requires that the ends of all control cables have protective caps or otherwise be treated to prevent unraveling. The proposed rule would add the word “accessible″ between the words “all″ and “control cables,″ to clarify that only accessible control cable ends are subject to the requirement regarding protective caps or prevention of unraveling. In other words, control cable ends housed within the bicycle frame or component would not need to be covered with protective caps or otherwise treated to prevent unraveling.

We received no comments on this provision and have finalized it without change.

Section 1512.6(a) requires that the bicycle handlebar stem have a permanent ring or mark to indicate the minimum insertion depth of the handlebar stem into the fork. It also requires that the insertion mark not affect the structural integrity of the stem, not be less than 21/2times the stem diameter from the lowest point of the stem, and that the stem strength be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark.

The proposed rule would revise the opening words of paragraph (a) from“[t]he handlebar stem shall″ to “[q]uill-type handlebar stems shall,″ to clarify that this requirement only applies to bicycles having quill-type stems. Because nonquill-type stems do not get inserted into the stem, there is no need for them to have an insertion depth mark. This aspect of the proposal would codify the CPSC policy, announced in the June 17, 2010, stay notice, that nonquill-type stems would be excluded from the requirement to certify compliance with § 1512.6(a).

Section 1512.6(c) specifies that handlebars must allow comfortable and safe control of the bicycle and that handlebar ends be symmetrically located with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bicycle and “no more than 406 mm (16 in) above the seat surface when the seat is in its lowest position and the handlebar ends are in their highest position.″ The proposed rule would create an exception for recumbent bicycles because the handlebars of recumbent bicycles may exceed this regulatory maximum, depending upon their design configuration.

We received no comments on this provision and have finalized it without change.

Section 1512.12(b) currently states that, with respect to quick-release devices, the quick-release clamp action “shall emboss the frame or fork when locked.″ The proposed rule would create an exception for carbon fiber material. The requirement for a quick-release clamp action to emboss a frame or fork when locked is appropriate when bicycle frames are made using steel or aluminum. Modern technology, however, makes it possible to create bicycle frames using carbon fiber material. Carbon fiber is stronger than aluminum and steel, but embossing (or indenting) a carbon fiber frame or fork can weaken the material. To avoid such an illogical result (i.e., of intentionally weakening a carbon fiber frame or fork), the proposal would create an exception for carbon fiber material.

(Comment 2)—One commenter agreed with the proposal, but asserted that the more accurate way to describe this material (carbon fiber material) is to use the term “fiber reinforced plastics.″

(Response 2)—We agree with the commenter and have revised the final rule accordingly.

Section 1512.15 establishes various requirements for bicycle seats. Section 1512.15(a) imposes a limitation on seat height, stating that “[n]o part of the seat, seat supports, or accessories attached to the seat shall be more than 125 mm (5.0 in) above the top of the seat surface at the point where the seat surface is intersected by the seat post axis.″

Section 1512.15(b) requires seat posts to contain a “permanent mark or ring that clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth (maximum seat-height adjustment)″ and that the mark not affect the structural integrity of the seat post. (A seat post is a post on which the bicycle seat or saddle rests; a traditional seat post is inserted into the bicycle frame and can be moved up or down to accommodate the rider's size.) Section 1512.15(b) also requires the mark to be “located no less than two seat-post diameters from the lowest point on the post shaft, and the post strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark.″

The proposed rule would create an exception for recumbent bicycles from the seat height limitation in § 1512.15(a). Recumbent bicycles are designed for reclined riding, so the seats on recumbent bicycles tend to have substantial seat backs. This exception would enable recumbent bicycles to retain their high seat-back design without being in violation of § 1512.15(a).

The proposed rule also would create an exception for bicycles with integrated seat masts from the requirement that seat posts contain a permanent mark or ring to indicate the minimum insertion depth. Integrated seat masts are part of the bicycle frame itself; thus, they do not get inserted in a seat post, and so no insertion depth mark is possible.

(Comment 3)—One commenter said that bicycles with integrated seat masts should continue to have a marking that allows retailers and consumers to easily determine that the seat and seat post are safely installed.

(Response 3)—We agree that integrated seat masts with a marking would allow retailers and consumers to easily determine that a seat is safely assembled. A mark on the product will reassure the public that the seat is safe. Thus, we have revised the final rule to state that, “(t)he seat post shall contain a permanent mark or ring that clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth (maximum seat-height adjustment); the mark shall not affect the structural integrity of the seat post. This mark shall be located no less than two seat-post diameters from the lowest point on the post shaft, and the post strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark. This requirement does not apply to bicycles with integrated seat masts, however, a permanent mark or other means to clearly indicate that the seat or seat post is safely installed shall be provided.″

(Comment 4)—One commenter requested that seat posts that are cut to fit be excluded from the marking requirement because there is no way to determine where the mark should be.

(Response 4)—We decline to grant the commenter's request to exclude seat posts that are cut to fit from the requirement. We believe that such an exclusion could result in a decrease in safety and that further work, such as testing and an examination of any existing standards that may be relevant, would be needed to consider the potential impact of such an exclusion. We will, however, consider the issue when we conduct a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 5)—One commenter remarked on the number of accidents that the commenter has witnessed resulting from bicycles seats being raised too high. The commenter would require manufacturers to insert a marking that will indicate a safe seat height level.

(Response 5)—The pre-existing regulations already require such marking. Consequently, no revision to the final rule is necessary with respect to this comment.

The proposed rule would amend § 1512.18(k)(1)(i), which describes the procedure for conducting the fork test. The test procedure requires, in relevant part, that the load on the fork “be increased until a deflection of 64 mm (21/2in) is reached.″ The test criteria, which are specified at § 1512.18(k)(1)(ii), explain that “[e]nergy of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) shall be absorbed with a deflection in the direction of the force of no more than 64 mm (21/2in.).″ Thus, the fork test involves applying a load to the fork, and the fork must absorb the required energy while not deflecting more than 64 millimeters, or 2.5 inches.

The proposed rule would delete the last sentence of § 1512.18(k)(1)(i), regarding a deflection of 64 millimeters (2.5 inches), because § 1512.18(k)(1)(i) may be interpreted (incorrectly) as conflicting with § 1512.18(k)(1)(ii). In other words, a reader might construe the regulations as requiring force to be applied until the fork is deflected to 64 millimeters or 2.5 inches.

The proposed rule also would amend the reflector performance test description at § 1512.18(n)(2)(vii). The reflector performance test descriptiondiscusses a coordinate system used for the reflector performance test and states that “[i]n the coordinate system and when illuminated by the source defined in table 4 of this part 1512, a reflector will be considered to be red if its color falls within the region bounded by the red spectrum locus and the lines y0.980—x and y0.335; a reflector will be considered to be amber if its color falls within the region bounded by the yellow spectrum locus and the lines y0.382, y0.790−0.667x, and y x—0.120.″ The y and x coordinates, as described in the rule, omitted important mathematical symbols or duplicated other mathematical symbols. The proposal would revise § 1512.18(n)(2)(vii) to read “[i]n the coordinate system and when illuminated by the source defined in table 4 of this part 1512, a reflector will be considered to be red if its color falls within the region bounded by the red spectrum locus and the lines y = 0.980−x and y = 0.335; a reflector will be considered to be amber if its color falls within the region bounded by the yellow spectrum locus and the lines y = 0.382, y = 0.790−0.667x, and y = x−0.120.″

Section 1512.18(n)(2)(vii) also refers to the “IES Lighting Handbook,fifth edition, 1972,″ and a footnote to the rule explains that theIES Lighting Handbookmay be obtained from the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) and gives an address for IES. The reference to theIES Lighting Handbookis outdated, as is the address for the IES. More importantly, the recommended coordinate system for definition of color discussed in § 1512.18(n)(2)(vii), the “Internationale de l-Eclairage (CIE) 1931″ system, is readily accessible for little or no cost from various sources in addition to the IES, including the Internet. Because the CIE 1931 color coordinate system is publicly available, the reference to theIES Lighting Handbookis not necessary, and therefore, the proposed rule would delete the reference to theIES Lighting Handbookand its accompanying footnote.

We received no comments on these provisions and have finalized them without change.

Several commenters suggested additional revisions to the bicycle regulations. We discuss those comments, and our responses, in this section.

(Comment 6)—One commenter asked that we change the requirement for the brake lever grip dimension. Currently, the grip dimension, which is defined as the maximum outside dimension between the brake hand lever and the handlebars, shall not exceed 89 mm (3.5 inches). The commenter would change the maximum to 100 mm (4.0 inches) to accommodate new bicycle designs that include gear shift mechanisms on the lever. The commenter stated that, because of the need to accommodate the added shifting mechanism and allow space for the rider's hands, the brake lever portion of the combination brake/shift lever may be slightly farther away from the handlebar.

(Response 6)—We decline to revise § 1512.5(b)(3) because such an exclusion could result in a decrease in safety and that further work, such as testing and an examination of any existing standards that may be relevant, would be needed to consider the potential impact of the commenter's suggested change. Thus, we will consider the commenter's suggestion when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 7)—Two commenters would revise the requirements for braking system testing. One commenter stated that he had prepared a written explanation as to why we should revise the braking standard, but the explanation was deleted. Another commenter would revise the braking system test requirements to require: (1) Bicycles to be tested under wet conditions that might result in longer stopping time; (2) a “front brake modulation test″ that would determine if the front brakes of a bicycle have a propensity to grab abruptly which could result in riders being thrown over the handlebars; and (3) a brake fade test to predict the loss of braking power when a rider is descending a hill, and brakes overheat.

(Response 7)—We agree, generally, that braking system testing requirements should be evaluated and revised. However, we decline to address this issue in the final rule. This rulemaking was intended, in part, to facilitate the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Changing these standards would involve, among other things, an examination of any relevant existing standards and possibly the development of new testing regimes or an analysis of existing testing regimes already in use. It would be more efficient and more appropriate to consider such issues when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 8)—Two commenters addressed clipless pedals, which are products that attach directly to the cleat of a cyclist's shoe. One commenter would have us define the term “clipless pedal,″ and both commenters would have us exempt clipless pedals from the requirement that pedals have reflectors. (Clipless pedals do not have the traditional platform or cage to support the foot and are not easily fitted with reflectors.)

(Response 8)—We acknowledge that reflectors cannot be installed on a clipless pedal. However, removing a reflector from a bicycle may result in a decrease in safety. Changing the standard would involve, among other things, an examination of any relevant existing standards and possibly the development of new testing regimes or an analysis of existing testing regimes already in use. It would be more efficient and more appropriate to consider such issues when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 9)—One commenter sought an exemption for clipless pedals from the tread requirement, stating that “it is not feasible to place treads on the pedals, as there is very little space.″

(Response 9)—We are aware of these concerns, but decline to address them in the final rule. Changing the standard would involve, among other things, an examination of any relevant existing standards and possibly the development of new testing regimes or an analysis of existing testing regimes already in use. It would be more efficient and more appropriate to consider such issues when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 10)—One commenter would revise the requirement for derailleur guards at § 1512.9(b). The derailleur guard requirement is designed to prevent the drive chain from interfering with or stopping the rotation of the wheel through improper adjustments or damage. The commenter said that some bicycle models (specifically those that experienced cyclists are likely to use) lack room for a derailleur guard.

(Response 10)—We are aware of this concern, but decline to address it in the final rule. The derailleur guard is intended to protect the rider from an accident should the drive chain interfere with the wheel because of improper adjustments or damage. Changing the standard would involve, among other things, an examination of any relevant existing standards and possibly the development of new testing regimes or an analysis of existing testing regimes already in use. It would be more efficient and more appropriate to consider such issues when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

(Comment 11)—One commenter asked us to evaluate component failures that are caused by material fatigue, which the commenter defined as the weakening and subsequent fracture of the material due to repeated stress.

(Response 11) We agree that testing component parts that fail because of material fatigue is an important issue that should be evaluated and revised. However, we decline to address this in the final rule. Changing the standard would involve, among other things, an examination of any relevant existing standards and possibly the development of new testing regimes or an analysis of existing testing regimes already in use. Thus, we will consider the matter when we undertake a more thorough evaluation of the bicycle standards.

Several commenters addressed the proposed rule in general terms or addressed matters that were outside the scope of the proposed rule.

(Comment 12)—Three commenters agreed with the proposed rule in its existing form. One of the commenters, while pleased with the proposed rule at this point, urged us to review and assess the bicycle requirements in greater depth. In contrast, one commentator was opposed to the proposed rule because we did not conduct a more comprehensive review of the bicycle regulations. The commenter said that manufacturers are “forced into a testing regime.″

(Response 12)—Section 14 of the CPSA requires manufacturers and private labelers of a product subject to a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or regulation to certify compliance of the product with such rule, ban, standard, or regulation. As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 67043), we issued the proposed rule, in part, to facilitate the testing and certification required by section 14 of the CPSA. We also acknowledged that a more extensive review of the bicycle regulations is necessary (75 FR at 67044), but that we cannot accomplish such a review in the timeframe that is necessary for implementing the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA. We will conduct a more extensive review of the bicycle regulations as time and resources permit.

(Comment 13)—One commenter noted that there is a typographical error in a CPSC Regulatory Summary for 16 CFR part 1512. In a description of the requirement for chains and chain guards, the document incorrectly substitutes “90%″ for “90 degrees.″

(Response 13)—CPSC Regulatory Summaries are found on our Web site and are not part of the rule. Nevertheless, we are examining our regulatory summaries and intend to revise or, in some cases, delete them to reflect current requirements and new information.

(Comment 14)—One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule might create an obligation for bicycle manufacturers to produce new parts.

(Response 14)—Nothing in the proposed rule or the final rule requires a bicycle manufacturer to produce new parts to the meet the requirement.

(Comment 15)—One commenter expressed concern over lead content in children's bicycles.

(Response 15)—If a bicycle is a “children's product″ as defined by section 3(a)(2) of the CPSA, then it is subject to the lead content limit in section 101(a)(2) of the CPSIA. We note, however, that there is a stay of enforcement in place regarding lead content in certain parts of children's bicycles. In theFederal Registerof June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31254), the Commission issued a stay of enforcement until June 1, 2011 with regard to the lead content in certain parts of bicycles designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. The Commission approved the stay in order to allow time to develop rules and requirements which will address the very specific questions regarding lead content in children's bicycles. In theFederal Registerof February 8, 2011 (76 FR 6765), the Commission extended the stay of enforcement until December 31, 2011.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, requires the Commission to evaluate the economic impact of rules on small entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities relevant to this rule are small businesses. It should be noted that we did not receive any comments related to the economic impact of the proposed rule.

We conclude that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact. The amendments make minor changes to the existing regulations to reflect new technologies, designs and features in bicycles by clarifying that certain provisions or testing requirements do not apply to specific bicycles or bicycle parts. The amendments clarify several ambiguous and confusing provisions. The final rule also corrects typographical errors, and deletes an outdated reference.

These changes are not expected to result in product modifications in order to comply and do not require any additional testing or recordkeeping burdens. The clarifications and exceptions resulting from the amendments could result in modest cost savings to small businesses in the form of more focused testing or the elimination of unnecessary testing.

Accordingly, the Commission determines that the final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,include minimizing the paperwork burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise the collection of information, including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information.

This final rule does not implicate the PRA, because there are no collection of information obligations associated with the proposed amendments to part 1512.

The final rule falls within the scope of the Commission's environmental review regulations at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1), which provide a categorical exclusion from any requirement for the agency to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for amendments of rules or safety standards that provide design or performance requirements for products.

Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY 10017-5755, filed NADA 141-322 that provides for the veterinary prescription use of IMPROVEST (gonadotropin releasing factor-diphtheria toxoid conjugate) Sterile Solution for Injection for temporary immunological castration (suppression of testicular function) and reduction of boar taint in intact male pigs intended for slaughter. The application is approved as of March 22, 2011, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR part 522 to reflect approval.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(i)), this approval qualifies for 5 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 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.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule″ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.″ Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for June 2011.1

The June 2011 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 2.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interestassumptions in effect for May 2011, these interest assumptions are unchanged.

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

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during June 2011, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

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

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

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

On February 17, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Severn River, Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, Annapolis, MD″ in theFederal Register(76 FR 33). We received no commentson the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment against the hazards associated with vessels operating in the immediate vicinity of a large group of swimmers on confined navigable waters. Such hazards include injuries or death caused by vessel strikes and navigational obstructions and hazards caused by swimmers in the navigable channel. Delaying this already-planned and already-announced event to accommodate a 30-day delayed effective date is contrary to the public interest. In addition, during the 30-day comment period on the proposed rule, no comments were received. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the regulated area's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels involved in the event, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

On Saturday, May 14, 2011, Competitor Group Inc. of San Diego, California, will sponsor the “TriRock Annapolis″ triathlon in Annapolis, Maryland. The swim segment of the event will occur from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and will be located in Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor. Up to 2,000 swimmers will operate on a 500-meter course located between the Annapolis City Dock and the confluence of the Spa Creek with the Severn River. The swimmers will be supported by sponsor-provided watercraft. The start and finish will be located at the Annapolis City Dock. A portion of the swim course will impede the federal navigation channel. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

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, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected portions of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor during the event, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Though the regulated area extends across the entire width of the waterway, this proposed rule would be in effect for only a limited period; and before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.″ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Publishing a NPRM would be impracticable with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to safeguard participants during the Venture Outdoors Festival marine event from the hazards imposed by marine traffic. The date of the Venture Outdoors Festival is tied to numerous other events and cannot be changed at this time. In addition, because the regulation is for one day only, applies to a small portion of the river and will not impede navigation of the river, the Coast Guard believes that the restriction on marine traffic will be so minimal as to make full notice & comment procedures unnecessary.

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. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be impracticable based on the short notice received for the event and the short period that the special local regulation will be in place. Immediate action is needed to provide safety and protection during the Venture Outdoors Festival marine event that will occur in the city of Pittsburgh, PA. The date of the Venture Outdoors Festival is tied to numerous other events and cannot be changed at this time. In addition, because the regulation is for one day only, applies to a small portion of the river and will not impede navigation of the river, the Coast Guard believes that the restriction on marine traffic will be so minimal as to make full notice & comment procedures unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation from the Point State Park (mile marker 0.0) to the River Rescue station (mile marker 0.5) on the Allegheny River, extending 200 feet out from the right (descending bank. The special local regulation is being established to safeguard participants of the Venture Outdoors Festival from the hazards of marine traffic.

The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh is establishing a temporary special local regulation from the Point State Park (mile marker 0.0) to the River Rescue station (mile marker 0.5) on the Allegheny River, extending 200 feet out from the right descending bank. The special local regulation is being established to safeguard participants of the Venture Outdoors Festival from the hazards of marine traffic that will occur in the city of Pittsburgh, PA. Persons or vessels shall not enter into, depart from, or move within the regulated area without permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or his authorized representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This rule is effective from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 21, 2011. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule will only be in effect for less than one day and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit that portion of the waterways from the Point State Park (mile marker 0.0) to the River Rescue station (mile marker 0.5) on the Allegheny River, from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 21, 2011. The special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will only be in effect for less than one day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h.), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a special local regulation, requiring a permit wherein an analysis of the environmental impact of the regulations was performed. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h.), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.″ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with maritime fireworks displays.

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. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

On May 28, 2011 fireworks will be launched from a point on Lake Charlevoix to commemorate Memorial Day. The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, has determined that the Memorial Day Tribute Fireworks Display will pose significant risks to the public. The likely congested waterways in the vicinity of a fireworks display could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.

To mitigate the risks associated with the Memorial Day Tribute Fireworks Display, the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie will enforce a temporary safety zone in the vicinity of the launch site. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity of Sommerset Pointe, within the arc of a circle with an 800ft radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge positioned 45°13′04″ N, 085°03′41″ W [DATUM: NAD 83].

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, 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. We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone will be relatively small and will exist for only a minimal time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by proper authority.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities″ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be smallentities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Charlevoix between 10 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. on May 28, 2010.

This safety zone will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will only be enforced for a short period of time. Vessels may safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, 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 can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety and security zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.1318 for large passenger vessels operating in the Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone during the dates and times listed inDATES.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1318 and 33 CFR 165 Subparts C and D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety and security zone without permission of the Captain of the Port, Columbia River. Persons or vessels wishing to enter the safety and security zone may request permission to do so from the on-scene Captain of the Port representative via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1318 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register,the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

On February 13, 2011, the Copyright Office implemented a reorganization, commenced in December 2010, that moved the recordation function from the Visual Arts and Recordation Division of the Registration and Recordation Program to the Information and Records Division. As a result of the reorganization, the Registration and Recordation Program has been renamed the Registration Program. The Documents Recordation Team, which was part of the Visual Arts Division of the Registration and Recordation Program, has been renamed the Recordation Section of the Information and Records Division.

The Recordation Section processes the recordation of transfers of copyright ownership and other documents pertaining to a copyright under section 205 of the Copyright Act, the recordation of notices of termination of transfers and licenses under sections 203 and 304(c) and (d) of the Copyright Act, and designations of agents of online service providers to receive notification of claims of infringement under section 512(c) of the Copyright Act.

This reorganization better aligns and leverages the skill sets of Recordation staff with similar skill sets required of staff in the Records Research and Certification Section of the Information and Records Division. The Office believes that the reorganization will result in timelier processing of recordations and make the public record available in a more timely fashion.

Parts 202, 203, and 211 of the Copyright Office Regulations currently refer to the Registration and Recordation Program. In order to reflect the change in the name of the Program, the provisions of those parts of the regulations that refer to the Program are being amended to refer to the Registration Program. In addition, a typographical error in § 203.3(b)(2) is being corrected.

Accordingly, 37 CFR Chapter II is amended by making the following technical corrections and amendments:

I. Background

Throughout this document, whenever “we,″ “us,″ or “our″ is used, we mean EPA. On January 12, 2011 (76 FR 2070), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of a new Chapter 85 of 9 VAC 5. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the VADEQ on October 27, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, VADEQ submitted a revision to EPA for approval into the Virginia SIP. This SIP revision would establish appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources become subject to Virginia's PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Final approval of Virginia's October 27, 2010, SIP revision puts in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule—Final Rule″ (the Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010) ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements.

This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions that provide the background for today's final action. More detailed discussions of the background are found in the preambles for those actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,1 and in the preambles to the actions cited in that rule.

EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one another, establish the overall framework for today's final action to approve Virginia's October 27, 2010 SIP revision. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Finding, which EPA issued in a single final action,2 the Johnson Memo Reconsideration,3 the Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,4 and the Tailoring Rule.5 Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.

The PSD permitting program is implemented through the SIP, and so in December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).6 Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the “error correction″ provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).

On July 28, 2010, Virginia provided a letter to EPA, in accordance with an EPA request to all states in the Tailoring Rule, with confirmation that the Commonwealth of Virginia has the authority to regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Virginia rules require regulating GHGs at the 100/250 tpy threshold that generally applies to all air pollutants subject to PSD and that is provided under the CAA PSD provisions, section 169(1), rather than at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. (Seethe docket for this rulemaking for a copy of Virginia's letter.)

In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA withdrewits approval of Virginia's SIP—among other SIPs—to the extent that the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.7 As a result, Virginia's current federally approved SIP provides the state with authority to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources and requires new and modified sources to receive a PSD permit based on GHG emissions, but only if those sources emit at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.

Virginia's October 27, 2010 SIP revision amends its SIP to put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA's approval of Virginia's October 27, 2010 incorporates these adopted by the Commonwealth into the Federally-approved SIP. Doing so will clarify the applicable thresholds in the Virginia SIP.

The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability to GHG sources which emit at or above the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) includes as a requirement for SIP approval that States provide “necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].″ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds,8 and no State, including Virginia, asserted that it did have adequate resources to do so.9 In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Virginia, had a flaw in their SIP at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than the resources available to them under their SIP.10 Accordingly, for each affected state, including Virginia, EPA concluded that EPA's action in approving the SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.11 EPA recommended that States adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under State law, only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.12

EPA received a single set of relevant comments on its January 12, 2011 (76 FR 2070) proposed action to approve revisions to Virginia SIP. These comments, provided by the Air Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter″), raised concerns with regard to EPA's January 12, 2011 proposed action. A full set of these comments is provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Generally, the adverse comments fall into four categories. First, the Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by GHGs. Second, the Commenter expresses concerns regarding “EPA's statement that it may narrow its prior SIP approvals″ to ensure that sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law to obtain PSD permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The Commenter explains that this SIP approval narrowing action would be “illegal.″13 Third, the Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review requirements. Lastly, the Commenter states: “If EPA proceeds with this action, it must condition approval on the continued validity of its determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs.″ EPA's response to these four categories of comments is provided below.

Comment 1:The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the Commenter states: “[n]o area in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been designated attainment or unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is no national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs cannot trigger PSD permitting requirements.″ The Commenter notes that it made this argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring Rule and other related GHG rulemakings. The Commenter attached those previously submitted comments to its comments on the proposed rulemaking related to this action. Finally, the Commenter states that “EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now interpreting the Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow Virginia to rescind that portion of its rules that would allow GHGs to trigger PSD.″

Response 1:EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants, in earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD program, and EPA has not re-opened that issue in this rulemaking. Accordingly, these comments are not relevant to this rulemaking. In addition, EPA has explained in detail, in recent rulemakings concerning GHG PSD requirements, its reasons for disagreeing with these comments. For convenience, we briefly summarize these reasons here, although, again, we have not re-opened this issue in this rulemaking.

In an August 7, 1980 rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712, and 45 FR 52735, EPA stated that a “major stationary source″ was one that emitted “any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act″ at or above the specified numerical thresholds; and defined a “major modification,″ in general, as a physical or operational change that increased emissions of “any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act″ by more than an amount that EPA variously termed asde minimisor significant. In addition, in EPA's NSR Reform rule at 67 FR 80186 and 67 FR 80240 (December 31, 2002), EPA added to the PSD regulations the new definition of “regulated NSR pollutant″ [currently codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)], noted that EPA added this term based on a request from a commenter to “clarify which pollutants are covered under the PSD program″ and explained that in addition to criteria pollutants for which a NAAQS has been established, “[t]he PSD program applies automatically to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which would include final promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance standard] applicable to a previously unregulated pollutant.″Id.at 67 FR 80240 and 67 FR 80264. Among other things, the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant″ includes “[a]ny pollutant that otherwise is subject toregulation under the Act.″See40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv);see also40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)(iv).

In any event, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise that PSD requirements were not triggered for GHGs when GHGs became subject to regulation as of January 2, 2011. As just noted, this has been well-established and discussed in connection with prior EPA actions, including, most recently, the Johnson Memo Reconsideration and the Tailoring Rule. In addition, EPA's January 12, 2011 proposed rulemaking notice provides the general basis for the Agency's rationale that GHGs, while not a NAAQS pollutant, can trigger PSD permitting requirements. The January 12, 2011 notice also refers the reader to the preamble to the Tailoring Rule for further information on this rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA addressed at length the comment that PSD can be triggered only by pollutants subject to the NAAQS and concluded that such an interpretation of the Act would contravene Congress's unambiguous intent.See75 FR 31560-31562. Further discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that PSD requirements are triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants such as GHGs appears in the Tailoring Rule Response to Comments document (“Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments″), pp. 34-41; and in EPA's response to motions for a stay filed in the litigation concerning those rules [“EPA's Response to Motions for Stay,″Coalition for Responsible Regulationv.EPA,D.C. Cir. No. 09-1322 (and consolidated cases)], at pp. 47-59, and are incorporated by reference here. These documents have been placed in the docket for today's action.

Comment 2:The Commenter expresses concerns regarding the legality of narrowing prior SIP approvals if states cannot interpret their regulations to include the Tailoring Rule thresholds within the phrase “subject to regulation.″

Response 2:While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion that the narrowing approach that EPA proposed in the Tailoring Rule and finalized in the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule is illegal, the validity of the narrowing approach is irrelevant to the action that EPA is today taking for Virginia's October 27, 2010 SIP revision. EPA did not propose to narrow its approval of Virginia's SIP as part of its January 12, 2011 proposed action, and in today's final action, EPA is acting to approve a SIP revision submitted by Virginia and is not otherwise narrowing its approval of prior submitted and approved provisions in the Virginia SIP. Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing approach is not at issue in this rulemaking.

Comment 3:The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review requirements. Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory requirements and executive orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions that EPA has never analyzed the costs and benefits associated with triggering PSD for stationary sources in Virginia, much less nationwide.

Response 3:EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of Virginia's October 27, 2010 SIP revision, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, EPA's approval, in and of itself, does not impose any new information collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, this SIP approval will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, beyond that which would be required by the state law requirements, so a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA. Accordingly, this rule is appropriately certified under section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as this action 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 mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, such that it would be subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Furthermore, this action does not have Federalism implications that would make Executive Order 13132 applicable, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Finally, regarding the Commenter's assertion that EPA has “never analyzed the costs and benefits of triggering PSD for stationary sources in Virginia, much less nationwide″, this comment is not relevant to the current action because this action is not triggering GHG PSD requirements.

Today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision, which approves state law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those imposed by state law. To the extent these comments are directed more generally to the application of the statutory and executive order reviews to the required regulation of GHGs under PSD programs, these comments are irrelevant to the approval of state law in today's action. However, EPA provided an extensive response to similar comments in promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled “VII. Comments on Statutory and Executive Order Reviews,″75 FR 31601-31603, and “VI. What are the economic impacts of the final rule?,″75 FR 31595-31601. EPA also notes that today's action does not in-and-of itself trigger the regulation of GHGs. To the contrary, GHGs are already being regulated nationally, and PSD permitting for GHG emissions by Virginia is already authorized under the existing SIP. Today's action simply puts in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements.

Comment 4:The Commenter states that “[i]f EPA proceeds with this action, it must condition approval on the continued validity of its determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs.″ Further, the Commenter remarks on the ongoing litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Specifically, regarding EPA's determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs or is applicable to GHGs, the Commenter mentions that “EPA should explicitly state in any final rule that the continued enforceability of these provisions in the Virginia SIP is limited to the extent to which the Federal requirements remain enforceable.″

Response 4:EPA believes that it is most appropriate to take actions that are consistent with the Federal regulations that are in place at the time the action is being taken. To the extent that any changes to Federal regulations related to today's action result from pending legal challenges or other actions, EPA will process appropriate SIP revisions in accordance with the procedures provided in the Act and EPA's regulations. EPA notes that in an order dated December 10, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied motions to stay EPA's regulatory actions related to GHGs.Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.v.EPA,Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092 (and consolidated cases), Slip Op.at 3 (D.C. Cir. December 10, 2010) (order denying stay motions).

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege″ for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,″ including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,″ since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *″ The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.″

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,″ any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.″

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

EPA is approving 9 VAC5 Chapter 85 as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA has determined that this SIP submittal is approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.

As discussed above, in the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA both narrowed its prior approval of a number of SIPs and asked that each affected state withdraw from EPA consideration the part of its SIP that is no longer approved, and stated that approval of a SIP revision incorporating the Tailoring Rule thresholds into a SIP would count as removing these no-longer-approved provisions. Today's SIP revision approval accomplishes exactly this. Because EPA is approving Virginia's changes to its air quality regulations to incorporate appropriate thresholds for GHG permitting applicability into Virginia's SIP, then paragraph (t) in § 52.2423 of 40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing Rule—which codifies EPA's limiting its approval of Virginia's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds—is no longer necessary. In today's action, EPA is also amending Section 52.2423 of 40 CFR part 52 to remove this unnecessary regulatory language; the removal of this now-extraneous language is ministerial in nature.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 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 humanhealth 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 Virginia SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the Commonwealth, 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 this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 12, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule to approve Virginia's October 27, 2010 SIP revision 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 pertaining to greenhouse gas permitting in Virginia may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,″ “us,″ or “our″ is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

IDEM submitted the SIP revision on November 24, 2010.

IDEM held a public hearing on June 2, 2010. IDEM did not receive any public comments concerning the SIP revision.

The State has requested that SIP revision include: (1) updated references to the CFR at 326 IAC 1-1-3, and (2) the deletion of a reference toFederal Registercitation at 326 IAC 1-2-48 to clarify that the compounds dimethyl carbonate and propylene carbonate are excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC).

Rule 326 IAC 1-1-3, definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations.″IDEM updated the reference to the CFR in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2008 edition to the 2009 edition. This is solely an administrative change that allows Indiana to reference a more current version of the CFR. By amending 326 IAC 1-1-3 to reference the most current version of the CFR, Title 326 of the IAC will be consistent and current with Federal regulations.

Rule 326 IAC 1-2-48, definition of “Nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons″ or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds.″IDEM has amended 326 IAC 1-2-48 to clarify the inclusion of two additional compounds to the list of compounds that are excluded from the definition of VOC by deleting language in section(a)(1) that EPA had not previously approved and which unnecessarily cited a January 21, 2009Federal Registernotice (74 FR 3437). Rule 326 IAC 1-2-48 (a)(1) now clearly incorporates by reference the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1), which lists all the negligibly reactive compounds excluded from the definition of VOC, and does so without any additional qualifying citations.

We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP to: (1) Update the definition at 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the Code of Federal Regulations,″ to refer to the 2009 edition, and (2) delete language that references theFederal Registerin 326 IAC 1-2-48(a)(1), that are redundant as a result of the update to the references to CFR.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of thisFederal Registerpublication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 12, 2011 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 13, 2011. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 12, 2011.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 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 Clean Air Act; 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 12, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today'sFederal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. What action is EPA taking? III. Summary of SIP Revision IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Massachusetts. The SIP revision consists of a minor modification to the carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for Lowell, Massachusetts. (A redesignation request and a maintenance plan for the Lowell CO nonattainment area were approved by EPA on February 19, 2002 (67 FR 7272).) The modification changes the triggering mechanism which will be used by the State to determine if contingency measures need to be implemented in Lowell.

On February 17, 2011, EPA proposed approval of this SIP revision (76 FR 9281). EPA received no comments on the proposed rulemaking.

EPA is approving revisions to the Lowell carbon monoxide maintenance plan submitted by the State of Massachusetts on April 14, 2010. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's modification of the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Lowell. This action will allow the discontinuation of CO monitoring in the Lowell maintenance area. Other specific requirements of the revised carbon monoxide plan for Lowell, Massachusetts and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and will not be restated here.

On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection submitted a SIP revision to EPA that contains a modification to its CO maintenance plan for the Lowell CO maintenance area. The modifications to the maintenance plan change the triggering mechanism by which contingency measures would be implemented and will allow the State to discontinue CO monitoring in the Lowell maintenance area. CO concentrations measured in Lowell havebeen below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nearly 25 years, and in recent years, maximum measured concentrations have been less than 30% of the 9 parts per million (ppm) 8-hour CO standard.1 In this SIP revision, the State of Massachusetts is establishing an alternative triggering mechanism, which will rely on CO data from a nearby CO monitor in Worcester, Massachusetts (MA).

Under the previous maintenance plan, contingency measures in Lowell were triggered when a violation of the CO NAAQS was measured in Lowell. Under the revised maintenance plan, Massachusetts will rely on data from the Worcester CO monitor to determine when and if monitoring will be re-established in the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the Lowell maintenance area.

Massachusetts will discontinue CO monitoring in Lowell. Massachusetts DEP will continue to collect and review CO monitoring data from nearby Worcester, MA on an on-going basis. In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar year monitored in Worcester reaches 75 percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO (35 and 9 ppm, respectively), Massachusetts will, within 9 months of recording such concentrations, re-establish a CO monitoring site in Lowell consistent with EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those data. Massachusetts will continue to commit to implement its contingency program in Lowell in the event that a CO violation (the “contingency trigger″) is monitored at the re-established Lowell monitoring site at any time during the maintenance period and to consider one or more of the other EPA-approved measures listed in the 2001 Maintenance Plan if necessary to reduce CO levels.

If the Worcester CO monitor measures a violation of the either the federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, the contingency measures in 2001 Maintenance Plan for Lowell will be implemented in Lowell, as well as triggering contingency measures in Worcester under the terms of the existing Maintenance Plan for Worcester, until a re-established Lowell CO monitor shows that the area is in attainment of the CO standard.

When implementing contingency measures, Massachusetts will review and implement the measures necessary to remedy the violation, including transportation control measures (TCM) or other additional vehicle or fuel controls.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Lowell CO maintenance plan submitted by the State of Massachusetts on April 14, 2010. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's request to modify the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when contingency measures need to be implemented in Lowell. As described in more detail above, the State will shut down the Lowell CO monitor and rely on data from the CO monitor in Worcester to determine when and if monitoring will be reestablished in the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the Lowell maintenance area.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 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 Clean Air Act; 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 12, 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).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-(CAS No. 5117-12-4). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),e.g.,chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a modifiedSNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical substance that is the subject of a final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

EPA is finalizing an amendment to the SNUR for the chemical substance identified as 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (PMN P-95-169; CAS No. 5117-12-4) codified at § 721.5185. This final action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the subject chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

In addition, EPA is revising the name of the chemical substance as it appears at § 721.5185 to reflect the correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index name. 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- is the correct CA Index name for the chemical substance represented by CAS No. 5117-12-4 as it appears on the TSCA Inventory. The chemical name Morpholine, 4-(1-oxo-2-propenyl)-, which currently appears at § 721.5185, is a synonym for CAS No. 5117-12-4.

This rule was proposed in theFederal Registerof November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68306) (FRL-8849-7). EPA received no public comments in response to the proposal. Therefore, the Agency is issuing a final SNUR as proposed that:

1. Revises the CA Index name for the chemical substance represented by CAS No. 5117-12-4 from Morpholine, 4-(1-oxo-2-propenyl)- to 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-.

2. Identifies those forms of the PMN substance that are exempt from the provisions of the SNUR. These exemptions apply to quantities of the PMN substance after it has been completely reacted (cured).

3. Revises the protection in the workplace requirements under § 721.63 to remove all requirements for respiratory protection.

4. Revises the hazard communication requirements under § 721.72 to remove all requirements pertaining to respiratory protection.

5. Revises the industrial, commercial, and consumer requirements under § 721.80 to remove all requirements pertaining to domestic manufacture, and aggregate manufacture and import volumes.

6. Removes all disposal requirements under § 721.85.

7. Removes all release to water requirements under § 721.90.

8. Revises the recordkeeping requirements under § 721.125 to reflect the aforementioned modified SNUR requirements.

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.″ EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit IV. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in theFederal Registerits reasons for not taking action.

Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28 (the corresponding EPA policy appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B). Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemical substances subject to a modified SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a modified SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

Under the terms of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-95-0169, the PMN submitter completed and submitted required testing for EPA review. Based on these new data, concerns remain for possible effects to the liver, testes, kidney, and blood from dermal exposure. However, EPA no longer has substantial human health concerns for mutagenicity and neurotoxicity. In addition, based on these data, Agency concerns for carcinogenicity by inhalation were reduced, and further mitigated by retaining the original consent order prohibition of industrial processing and use in a non-enclosed process and any use application methods that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol form of the PMN substance. Finally, the Agency re-reviewed the environmental toxicity profile for the PMN substance and as a result of this evaluation could no longer make a “may present unreasonable risk″ finding for releases of the PMN substance to surface waters. As a result of the aforementioned review, EPA issued a modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order, which became effective on May 9, 2006. These modifications to the consent order are the same being made to this SNUR and are described in Unit II.A.

In addition, the Agency received a SNUN (S-08-07) for the subject chemical substance. The significant new use identified in the notice was release to water for the generic (non-confidential) use of “contained use in energy production.″ The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired with the Agency not taking action on the “significant new use″ of release of the substance to water. This decision by the Agency is consistent with the modifications made to the consent order for P-95-169 and today's SNUR.

Pursuant to § 721.185(a)(5) and as described in Unit II. of the proposed rule (see theFederal RegisterofNovember 5, 2010 (75 FR 68306)), the Agency has examined new information and reexamined the test data and other information supporting its finding under section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA for the chemical substance 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-. EPA determined that existing data no longer supports a finding that certain activities involving the substance “may present an unreasonable risk″ of injury to human health and the environment required under section 5(e)(1)(A) of TSCA.

EPA is issuing this modified SNUR for 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (PMN P-95-169; CAS No. 5117-12-4) because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:

• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing, importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

• EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers, importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.

• EPA will ensure that all manufacturers, importers, and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

To determine what would constitute a significant new use for 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- subject to this modified SNUR, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

As discussed in theFederal Registerof April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the proposed SNUR rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after publication were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new use before the rule became effective, and then argue that the use was ongoing before the effective date of the final rule.

Any person who began commercial manufacture, import, or processing of the chemical substance 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (CAS No. 5117-12-4) for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR modification after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR must stop that activity before the effective date of this final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to meet all SNUR notice requirements and wait until the end of the notification review period, including all extensions, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses. If, however, persons who began manufacture, import, or processing of the chemical substance between the date of publication of the proposed SNUR modification and the effective date of this modified SNUR meet the conditions of advance compliance as codified at § 721.45(h), those persons would be considered to have met the modified SNUR requirements for those activities.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two exceptions:

1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In this case, EPA recommends persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection.

The recommended testing specified in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, SNUNs submitted without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will respond by taking action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substance.

• Potential benefits of the chemical substance.

• Information on risks posed by the chemical substance compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in § 720.50. SNUNs must be on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically athttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substance during the development of the direct final rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669.

This action modifies a SNUR for a chemical substance that is the subject of a PMN and TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitledRegulatory Planning and Review(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in theFederal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is discussed in this unit. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.″ Because these uses are “new,″ based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 1,400 SNURs, the Agency receives on average only 5 notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted from 2006-2008, only one appears to be from a small entity. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN (see Unit VIII.) is minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in theFederal Registerof June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general determination that modified SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitledFederalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitledConsultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitledProtection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitledActions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justicerelated issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitledFederal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission'sReport and Order,MB Docket No. 11-20, adopted April 26, 2011, and released April 28, 2011. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via the company's Web site,http://www.bcipweb.com.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).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,″ pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

The Commission will send a copy of thisReport and Orderin a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

The final rule announcing that NMFS had issued regulations to govern the unintentional take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training activities conducted in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Training Activities Area (76 FR 25480; May 4, 2011) contained an error in Table 1 that omitted a device NMFS intended to include and an error in Table 5 that omitted a column displaying the total takes authorized over 5 years. Accordingly, in FR Doc. No. 2011-10440 on pages 25482 and 25503, respectively, Tables 1 and 5 are revised to read as follows: