Discussion

On March 13, 2007, we issued AD 2007-06-18, Amendment 39-14999 (72 FR 13681, March 23, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2007-06-18, it has been determined that certain new actuators had failure of internal parts. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0069, dated April 18, 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.

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex A320-32A1390, dated February 10, 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 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 failure of internal parts of actuators that could result in slow extension and down-locking of MLG, resulting in MLG collapse during landing or roll out, and consequent damage to the airplane. 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-2011-0573; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-082-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 include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31332). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-11-13, Amendment 39-15923 (74 FR 26288, June 2, 2009). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in theFederal Registeron August 23, 2010 (75 FR 51701). That NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for chafing and other damage of the case drain tube from the hydraulic pump case installed on the left-hand engine, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require, for all airplanes, repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the left engine's nacelle tubing, repetitive inspections for evidence of fluid leakage within the left engine accessory compartment, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require replacing the left engine fuel and hydraulic tubing and installing a tubing support channel which terminates the repetitive inspections required in the existing AD.

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

Marlin Priest requested that we revise the NPRM to reference later revisions of the maintenance manual, as operators may not have the prior revisions available. The commenter pointed out that Table 3 of the NPRM references Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM-104, Revision 47, dated March 30, 2009; and Learjet 40 Maintenance Manual MM-105, Revision 15, dated March 30, 2009. The commenter stated that Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM-104 is currently at a later revision.

We disagree with the request to refer to a later revision of Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM-104. The reference to that maintenance manual appears in requirements that are simply restated from AD 2009-11-13. Operators were required to have accomplished those actions within 50 flight hours after June 17, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-11-13). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to reference later versions of the maintenance manual in Table 3 of this AD. In addition, we cannot refer to “the latest revision of the maintenance manual” in this AD because using the phrase “or later FAA-approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced maintenance manual as an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (n) of the final rule. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

We estimate that this AD affects 358 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

On May 27, 2011, we issued Emergency AD 2011-12-51, which requires that, as of receipt of the AD, operation of Model FALCON 7X airplanes is prohibited.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2011-0102-E, dated May 26, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.

EASA has advised that a Model FALCON 7X airplane experienced an uncontrolled pitch trim runaway during descent. The crew succeeded in recovering a stable situation and performed an uneventful landing. Analysis of the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and Fault History Database (FHDB) confirmed the event, but did not identify the cause of the pitch trim runaway. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD prohibits, from the effective date of the EASA AD, any flight operations of FALCON 7X airplanes.

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 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.

This AD requires that, as of effective date of the AD, operation of Model FALCON 7X airplanes is prohibited.

We consider this AD interim action pending the outcome of the investigation currently being carried out by the manufacturer. We may consider further rulemaking when additional information is available.

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 an uncontrolled pitch trim runaway during descent could result in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include the docket number FAA-2011-0477 and Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-108-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 affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are no costs associated with complying with this AD.

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

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

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:

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 March 29, 2011 (76 FR 17362). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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, ingeneral, 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 66 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. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $11,220, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $33, for a cost of $288 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

Discussion

We issued a second supplemental 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 7, 2011 (76 FR 6578), and proposed to supersede AD 2007-05-08, Amendment 39-14969 (72 FR 9658, March 5, 2007). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

Hawaiian Airlines (Hawaiian) requested that paragraph (j) of the second supplemental NPRM be removed completely, or amended to delete the requirement regarding the inspection interval. Hawaiian explained that paragraph (j) of the second supplemental NPRM would mandate that no alternative inspections or inspection intervals could be used unless approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Hawaiian argued that this proposed requirement would restrict operators from using the long standing approvedALS Part 3 policy for exceptional short-term extensions, as defined in “Ref (C) ALS paragraph 9.” Hawaiian reasoned that the proposed requirement would also restrict operators from adjusting the interval on two-star certification maintenance requirements (CMR**) in accordance with the operators approved escalation practices or approved reliability program, as allowed per “Ref (C) paragraph 6.B.”

We partially agree. While we do not agree to remove paragraph (j) or delete the inspection interval in paragraph (j) of this final rule, we agree to add the phrase, “other than those specified in Airbus A330 ALS, Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 03, dated July 29, 2010,” which allows operators to use alternative inspections and alternative inspection intervals within the guidelines of Airbus A330 ALS, Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 03, dated July 29, 2010. We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD by replacing the phrase “at the times” with the phrase “within the times” to clarify all compliance times and extensions specified in Airbus A330 ALS, Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 03, dated July 29, 2010, are acceptable.

Airbus requested that we revise the second supplemental NPRM to reference the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2006-0224, dated July 27, 2006, instead of EASA AD 2006-0225, dated July 21, 2006. Airbus explained that EASA AD 2006-0225, dated July 21, 2006, is listed in the Related Information paragraph (paragraph (l)) of the second supplemental NPRM.

We agree to revise this final rule to reference EASA AD 2006-0224, dated July 27, 2006, in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have determined that EASA AD 2006-0224, dated July 27, 2006, is the appropriate corresponding EASA AD for this final rule.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

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 55 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2007-05-08 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $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 $4,675, 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.

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 proposed 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 7, 2011 (76 FR 6584). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

• Modsum 4-126330, “Fuel Tank System Design Left and Right Side (SFAR 88) Retrofit.” The retrofit includes replacing certain fittings, couplings, o-rings, gaskets, fuel adapter, and other related components with new, improved parts; applying Alodine 1132 to certain areas of a wing rib and a wing spar; and replacing a certain doubler on the front wing spar with a new, improved doubler.

• Modsum 4-126366, “Fuel Tank System and Fuel Indication—Wiring Identification, Segregation and Installation (High Level Sensor and Fuel Quantity Indication)—Retrofit.” The retrofit includes adding new wiring with protective sleeving, reworking existing wiring, labeling and separating the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) wiring and high level sensor wiring from other wiring, enhancing the electro-magnetic interference (EMI) shielding of the wiring connected to the vent valve position switch, and installing additional provisions (bulkhead brackets) for wiring clips in the center fuselage.

• Modsum 4-901425, “Fuel Feed to APU—Replacement of Couplings in Center Wing Left Side—SFAR 88.”

• Modsum 4-126370, “Fuel Tank System—Enhance Protective Covering for Electrical Cable Assembly,” which includes reworking the contact area on the rib at Yw-42.000 to ensure adequate electrical bonding, installing spiral wrap on certain cable assemblies where existing spiral wrap does not extend 4 inches past the tie mounts, applying a dome seal on thread openings on a high level sensor, and installing fuel grommets at certain locations.

• Modsum 4-113580, “Fuel Indication—High Level Sensor—Application of Sealant to Exposed End of Sensor Terminal Block Screws—Special Inspection and Rectification,” which includes doing a detailed inspection of the high level sensor for correct sealant coverage (`dome seal') on the terminal screws, and applying sealant if necessary.

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, ingeneral, 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 67 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 526 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 $37,696 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $5,521,202, or $82,406 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.

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.

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:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, the FAA published in theFederal Registera notice of proposed rulemaking to establish two helicopter RNAV routes in Northeast United States (76 FR 12643). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Four people submitted comments on the proposal.

Two commenters wrote expressing support for the proposal. Two commenters raised several issues which are discussed below. One commenter questioned the need for a new type of airway for helicopters stating that the existing system of VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-routes should be sufficient. The commenter wrote, in the past, the FAA had designated routes for helicopters in the northeast, but they were seldom available for use. Additionally, the commenter asked if the air traffic control separation standards for IFR helicopters differ from those that apply to fixed-wing aircraft; contending that, if they are the same, there is no need for helicopter airways.

The past routes noted by the commenter were initiated in FAA Advisory Circular AC 73-2, “IFR Helicopter Operations in the Northeast Corridor,” dated June 11, 1979. AC 73-2 advised of special RNAV helicopter routes between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. The routes were developed consistent with conventional traffic flows for use by helicopters under IFR conditions. Use of these routes was limited only to those operators that met specified criteria and were issued a letter of authorization from the FAA. Therefore, the routes were not available for general use and they were not depicted on IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts. The Advisory Circular was subsequently cancelled because the routes were designed for first generation RNAV systems which lacked the accuracy and reliability of satellite navigation and other advanced RNAV systems. Additionally, it was determined that the routes do not meet current Air Traffic Service route criteria. On March 26, 2007, the FAA issued a Letter to Airmen containing new routings to be filed with a “fix-to-fix” flight plan along the “old” IFR northeast corridor. As with the Advisory Circular routes, these routes are not depicted on IFR En route Low Altitude charts. The new TK routes in this rule approximate the former northeast corridor routetracks. In addition, the new TK routes are public routes that will be depicted on the IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts and available for use by suitably equipped helicopters.

Regarding IFR separation standards, there is no difference between IFR helicopters and IFR fixed wing aircraft. The question of establishing a new type of route for IFR helicopters was raised in response to user requests. In March 2006, the Helicopter Association International (HAI) requested that the FAA take action to develop and chart IFR RNAV airways for use by helicopters having IFR-approved GPS equipment. Of particular interest was the use of RNAV to assist IFR helicopter pilots transiting though busy terminal airspace areas while providing routes separate from fixed-wing traffic. This issue was studied by members of the Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF), which is comprised of both FAA and Industry participants. The ACF supported the establishment of RNAV helicopter routes and concluded that a unique prefix should be used to identify these routes. Establishment of charted helicopter RNAV TK-routes will enhance safety and facilitate more flexible and efficient access to the NAS for IFR helicopter operations. In addition, the TK-routes will enable the designation of waypoints and feeder routes that would provide a connection between the NAS and instrument procedures serving helicopter landing/departure facilities. Among the potential benefits of these routes are more efficient and safer operations for helicopter emergency medical services flights.

One commenter asked if he could file a TK-route for a flight in a Cessna 150. The answer is no, due in part to the differing missions of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, TK-routes may start and end at locations inappropriate for fixed wing aircraft, such as in the vicinity of hospital or other helipad locations. Due to this difference TK-routes will be designated specifically for helicopter use; therefore, only suitably equipped helicopters will be able to file for the routes.

A commenter asked about the expected usage of the routes and the altitudes flown. It is anticipated the average usage rate would be around 30 to 50 flights per month for those route segments between the Philadelphia and the New York City areas. Usage of the full route between New York and Washington, DC, is expected to be about five per month. Altitude use on the routes will vary as with other ATS routes. Each TK-route will have a designated minimum en route IFR altitude (MEA). Assigned altitudes will be determined based on the requested altitude filed in the flight plan by the pilot and ATC requirements.

The FAA received one request to extend the comment period. We feel that sufficient information was received to issue a final rule; therefore, an extension is not needed.

One commenter questioned whether an environmental categorical exclusion (CATEX), as noted in the NPRM, was appropriate for this rule. This comment is addressed in the “Environmental Review” section, below.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 adding low altitude helicopter RNAV routes (TK-routes) to the U.S. ATS route structure and designating the first two such helicopter RNAV routes. Helicopter RNAV routes will be identified by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) prefix “TK” followed by a 3-digit number. ICAO has allocated the number block 501 through 650 for U.S. use in identifying the routes. The two new routes in this rule, designated TK-502 and TK-504, will provide more direct routing for IFR helicopters in the northeast corridor between the New York City and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas. The routes will serve New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC area airports/heliports. The helicopter RNAV routes will be depicted on the appropriate IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts. Only GNSS equipped RNAV helicopters may file for the TK-routes.

Helicopter RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6012 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The helicopter RNAV routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it designates new helicopter RNAV air traffic service routes to enhance the safe and efficient use of the NAS in the northeastern United States.

The TK routes have been determined to be Categorically Excluded from further environmental review in accordance with paragraphs 311a of FAA Order 1050.1E and documented under the provisions outlined in paragraph 305 of that order. The estimated number of daily helicopter operations is low, with an estimate of less than 50 helicopter operations on the routes per month. Based on the low number of operations, no noise analysis was needed as per FAA Order 1050.1E. Other environmental impact categories were considered as well as the potential for extraordinary circumstances before reaching this environmental determination of CATEX. The Air Traffic Initial Environmental Review (IER) is not a mandatory document and was not required for this action. The FAA issued a Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision dated June 14, 2011.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

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

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

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in theFederal Registerexpensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule ” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The necessary information regarding the date for this fireworks event was not provided to the Coast Guard with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The potential dangers associated with a fireworks display, including accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles and falling hot embers makes a safety zone necessary to provide for the safety of participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists formaking this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. The potential dangers posed by fireworks displays conducted in close proximity to transiting vessels makes a safety zone necessary. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However, the Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the effected waterways via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, along with sponsor event notifications using commercial radio stations and area newspapers.

On July 4, 2011, fireworks will be launched from a point on land near the Pantego Creek to commemorate the Nation's birthday. The temporary safety zone created by this rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Such hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause death, serious bodily harm, or property damage. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch area will help ensure the safety of persons and property in the vicinity of this event and help minimize the associated risks.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of the Belhaven Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The fireworks display will occur from approximately 8:45 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2011.

The safety zone will encompass all waters on the Pantego Creek within a 600 foot radius of the launch site on land at position 35°32′35″ N, 076°37′46″ W from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2011. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the regulated area during the fireworks display.

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Notification of the temporary safety zone will be provided to the public via marine information broadcasts.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because 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 around the launch area will be relatively small and exist for only a minimal time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within any particular area of the Pantego Creek are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain on the Port.

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 and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of the Pantego Creek between 8:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2011.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because: (i) Vessels may transit around the event zone with permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander; (ii) the zone is of limited size and duration; (iii) in the event a vessel deems it necessary to transit through the zone during the enforcement period, the COTP may afford the vessel the opportunity to do so upon request. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Local Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect in order to allow mariners to make alternate plans for transiting the affected area.

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 theaggregate, 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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. 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 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information about the Charleston Sharkfest Swim with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize the potential danger to the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Charleston Sharkfest Swim.

On Sunday, September 4, 2011, the Charleston Sharkfest Swim is scheduled to take place on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The Charleston Sharkfest Swim will consist of a 1.5 mile swim that starts at Castle Pinckney on Shute's Folly, crosses Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the dock at Fountain Walk, next to the South Carolina Aquarium.

The safety zone encompasses certain waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 4, 2011. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for a only two hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Charleston Harbor encompassed within the safety zone from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 4, 2011. For the reasons discussed in the Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone on the waters of Charleston Harbor that will be enforced for a total of two hours. 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 165 as follows:

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

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifyinginformation (subject heading,Federal Registerdate and page number).

2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA approved the VOM general 8 lb/hr rule into the Illinois SIP on February 21, 1980 (45 FR 11472). The rule states that “no person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/hr (8 lb/hr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source * * *.” The basis for this rule is prevention of ground-level ozone formation in order to meet the ozone NAAQS.

Royal filed a petition for an adjusted standard on April 3, 2009, in accordance with section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and Illinois' regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code section 215. Section 28.1 sets out the factors that a petitioner must demonstrate to justify an adjusted standard. Royal filed the petition describing the factors relating to its Dix facility that are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied on in adopting the general rule, specifically that the general rule did not take into account the specific operations needed to make composite fiberglass pools. Royal also provided an air quality impact analysis to support its petition. On October 28, 2009, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) held a public hearing on the petition in Mt. Vernon, Illinois where testimony was given to support Royal's petition. A final order by the IPCB granted Royal an adjusted standard on February 18, 2010. Among other things, the IPCB found that granting the adjusted standard would not result in an adverse impact on air quality in terms of exceeding the ozone NAAQS. The IPCB limited applicability of the adjusted standard to the swimming pool manufacturing emissions units existing as of August 20, 2009 at the Dix facility.

EPA's approval is based on consideration of whether the adjusted standard meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 4202(l). In particular, EPA considered whether exempting Royal's Dix facility from compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 will impact Illinois' ability to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS in the area in which the facility is located.

Under CAA section 110(l) the state must show that the SIP revision will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of both existing eight-hour ozone standards, which would be 75 parts per billion (ppb) promulgated in 2008 and the 84 ppb promulgated in 1997.1 Based on the record presented to the IPCB, Royal provided evidence to IEPA after a 2006 notice of violation that Royal could not comply with the 8 lb/hour rule. After reviewing the evidence, IEPA agreed that Royal should file a petition for an adjusted standard. The monitor closest to Royal's Dix facility is located in Hamilton County, Illinois. This monitor has been and currently is attaining the eight-hour ozone standards with design values of 68 ppb for 2007-2009 and 68 ppb for 2008-2010 using preliminary quality assured (but not yet certified) data from 2010. See EPA's Web site on design values for ozone athttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.Thus, Royal's facility in Dix, Illinois has not been interfering with attainment of the standard at its current production rate.

To support its petition, Royal did a conservative analysis of emissions to determine an approximate ozone contribution that would result from it operating at the maximum capacity which Royal is allowed in its approved Title V permit. When adding this potential contribution to the existing monitored data both the 75 and 84 ppb ozone standards are still maintained even at the facility's maximum capacity.

Although Royal is not required to comply with the 8 lb/hour rule, Royal is required to operate its facility in compliance with Federal regulations of reinforced composite manufacturing facilities set forth at 40 CFR part 63 subpart WWWW, which requires certain operational practices, recordkeeping, and emission limits for VOM. The emissions of styrene from Royal's Dix facility are from three different types of operations: (1) Open molding, corrosion resistant and/or high strength resin applied by non-atomized spray, (2) open molding, corrosion resistant and/or high strength resin manually applied, and (3) open molding, resistant and/or high strength gel-coat. The Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requires emission limits on all of these processes of 113 pounds of styrene per ton of material (lb/ton), 123 lb/ton, and 605 lb/ton, respectively. These emission limits are enforceable VOM limits for the Dix Facility.

EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard of the 8 lb/hr general rule for VOM for Royal. The adjusted standard removes the 8 lb/hr VOM limit for Royal's fiberglass facility in Dix, Illinois in the SIP, and the Royal facility at Dix, Illinois is no longer subject to this rule as it applies to VOM emissions. The adjusted standard is approvable, since under worst case conditions it is not interfering with attaining or maintaining the 75 and 84 ppb ozone standards as prescribed by section 110(l) of the CAA.

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 amendment if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 26, 2011 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 27, 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. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receiveany comments, this action will be effective August 26, 2011.

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. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 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, so that EPA can withdraw 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. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55 (the OCS rule)1 which established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the corresponding onshore area (“COA”.) Because the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) of the Act requires that EPA update the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore requirements.

Pursuant to section 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will occur (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) under section 40 CFR 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55.

On February 10, 2011, (76 FR 7518), EPA proposed to approve requirements into the OCS Air Regulations pertaining to the State of Alaska. These requirements are being promulgated in response to the submittal of a Notice of Intent on December 10, 2010, by Shell Offshore, Inc. of Houston, Texas (“Shell”). EPA has evaluated the proposed requirements to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS, and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure that they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12(e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules.

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that would apply if the source[s] were located onshore. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (“SIP”) guidance or certain requirements of the Act.

Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

EPA's February 10, 2011, proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period which closed on March 14, 2011. During the public comment period, EPA received one letter from the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission commenting on the proposed rule.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission stated that Shell's NOI and other relevant submissions were not included within the public notice and were not made available to the public on EPA's Web site or otherwise.

Response:As noted in the proposed rule, EPA established a docket for the consistency update under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0045. The docked included the NOI submitted by Shell, the state rules relevant to the proposed action and other information relied on by EPA. These documents were available for review to the public, as noted in the proposed rule, electronically via the federal docket management system or in hard copy during normal business hours at EPA. We do acknowledge that the information was not posted on EPA Region 10's OCS webpage.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission requested a narrative discussing how EPA made the decision to include or exclude rules. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission expressed specific concern with EPA's decision to exclude administrative and procedural rules and stated that EPA did not explain the basis for excluding administrative and procedural rules.

Response:EPA is required to perform consistency updates to maintainconsistency with the applicable regulations in the COA. In order to be considered for inclusion in the OCS rule, these COA requirements must have been formally adopted by the state or local regulatory agency. Before a COA rule can apply to an OCS source, it must be incorporated into part 55 by formal rulemaking. EPA incorporates those onshore rules that comply with the statutory requirements of section 328 of the Clean Air Act that are rationally related to the attainment and maintenance of national or state ambient air quality standards and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. (See also 40 CFR 55.1). Section 328 of the Act requires that the requirements for sources located within 25 miles of a state's seaward boundary, shall be the same as would be applicable if the source were located on the COA. EPA must adopt the COA rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the rules it incorporates.

In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviews the current COA rules for consistency with part 55. For the proposed rule, EPA reviewed Alaska's Air Quality Control Regulations at 18 AAC 50, as amended through December 9, 2010, to identify rules that are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards (or part C of title I of the Act) and applicable to OCS sources. EPA also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. Rules that are arbitrary or capricious are excluded from incorporation. (See 40 CFR 55.12(e)). Additionally as noted in part 55, the OCS rules specifically provide that EPA shall not be bound by state or local administrative procedural requirements including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to hearing boards, permit issuance, public notice procedures, and public hearings. (See 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4)). EPA uses the applicable administrative and public notice and comment procedures of 40 CFR part 55.6 and 40 CFR part 124. (See 40 CFR 55.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4)). Finally EPA did not incorporate COA rules that regulate toxics which are not related to the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air quality standards, and/or designed to prevent exploration and development on the OCS. (See also 40 CFR 55.1 and 57 FR 40792, 40803 (Final OCS rule)).

The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements is to regulate emissions from OCS sources consistent with the requirements onshore; to the extent those requirements are applicable to OCS sources and as modified by the requirements of section 328 and 40 CFR part 55. EPA determined that each of the Alaska rules proposed to be incorporated relate to the regulation of criteria pollutants or their precursors and therefore are related to the Federal or State air quality standards or relate to the prevention of significant deterioration. For example, this final rule includes the State of Alaska regulations regarding ambient air quality management including other provisions regarding major and minor stationary source permit, but does not include provisions unrelated to OCS sources or activities. Because EPA must adopt the COA rules into part 55 as they exist onshore, EPA does not make substantive changes to the rules it incorporates. After reviewing Alaska's rules, EPA determined which ones are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or part C of title I of the Act and, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and are applicable to OCS sources.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission submitted several comments requesting clarification on EPA's decision to exclude several of the COA rules regarding public participation. Specifically, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission expressed concern about excluding the public from participating in the permit process by excluding permit issuance under 40 CFR 52.21 and excluding rules that allow request for adjudicatory hearing as it applies to 55.166(q)(2) public participation process of PSD permits. Specifically, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission asked EPA to clarify the rational for excluding 18 AAC 50.040(h)(2); 18 AAC 50.225(c) through (g); 18 AAC 50.306(c) and (e); 18 AAC 50.311(c); 18 AAC 50.316(c); 18 AAC 50.326 (j)(5) through (j)(6), (k)(1), (k)(3), (k)(5), and (k)(6); 18 AAC 50.400(j)(13); 18 AAC 50.420; 18 AAC 50.430; 18 AAC 50.542(a) through (d); and 18 AAC 50.546.

Response:Part 55.6(a)(3) requires EPA to follow the applicable procedures of 40 CFR part 124 in processing applications under part 55. Specifically, EPA is required to use the procedures in part 124 used to issue Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permits until 40 CFR part 124 has been modified to reference permits issued under part 55. As explained in the regulation itself, part 124 contains the procedures for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating the permits. (40 CFR 124.(1)(a)). Part 124 set forth the applicable procedures that EPA will use to process OCS permits, thus incorporating additional state procedural rules is not necessary. Also, part 124 specifically provides the opportunity for full meaningful public participation in the permit process. (See e.g. 40 CFR 124.10, 124.11 and 124.12). Additionally, part 124 includes procedures to challenge the permits. See 40 CFR 124.19. Accordingly, EPA excluded all COA regulations, including those referenced in the comment, pertaining to procedures for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating permits.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission asked EPA to clarify the exclusion of Table 1 Air Quality Classifications.

Response:EPA included 18 AAC 50 Table 1 Air Quality Classifications into the proposed rulemaking. The table can be found under Article 1—Ambient Air Quality Management in the proposed rule.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission asked EPA to clarify the exclusion of 18 AAC 50.250.

Response:EPA did not incorporate 18 AAC 50.250 because the rule sets out the procedure and criteria for revising air quality classifications. This rule was not incorporated because it is administrative or procedural. More specifically, the rule outlines the process the State of Alaska uses to reclassify an air quality classification for a geographic area.

Comment:The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission asked EPA to clarify exclusion of 18 AAC 326(h) and (i)(3) and 18 AAC 50.400 (a)(2), (a)(5), (j)(2) through (j)(5), and (j)(8)

Response:EPA did not incorporate 18 AAC 326(h) and (i)(3) and 18 AAC 50.400 (a)(2), (a)(5), (j)(2) through (j)(5), and (j)(8) because the rules do not apply to the OCS. More specifically, 18 AAC 50.326(h) and (i)(3) relates to a portion of the state regulations regarding Title V permits pertaining to ponds and lagoons and coffee roasters and agricultural activities as insignificant emission units. The provisions at 18 AAC 50.400 relate to the permit state administrative fees. Specifically, 18 AAC 50.400(a)(2) related to fees for a small power plant permit renewal and (a)(5), (j)(2) through (j)(5) and (j)(8) are procedural or do not relate to OCS sources and need not be incorporated.

Comment:AEWC requests an explanation and an opportunity for input on EPA's rationale prior to finalizing the update.

Response:EPA appreciated the comments submitted by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. As part ofthis rulemaking, EPA provided the public notice and the opportunity to comment on the proposed consistency update. EPA carefully considered the comments received and its response to the comments are contained in this action.

In this document, EPA takes final action to incorporate the changes proposed on February 10, 2011 into 40 CFR part 55 related to the consistency update for the OCS air regulations for Alaska. As described above, EPA is approving the action under section 328(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7627. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as or consistent with onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA incorporates applicable Alaska onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore.

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

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

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

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

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

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB Review. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA.

The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55, and by extension this update to the rules, under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act,44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249. The OMB Notice of Action is dated January 15, 2009. The approval expires January 31, 2012.

OMB's Notice of Action dated January 15, 2009 indicated that the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of information under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 112 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have had a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million of more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significantFederal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA.

Executive Orders 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. This rule does not amend the existing provisions within 40 CFR part 55 enabling delegation of OCS regulations to a COA, and this rule does not require the COA to implement the OCS rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this final rule from State and local officials.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule 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 and thus does not have “tribal implications,” within the meaning of Executive Order 13175. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In addition, this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Consultation with Indian tribes is therefore not required under Executive Order 13175. Nonetheless, in the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribes, EPA specifically solicits comments on this final rule from tribal officials.

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportional risk to children.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” [66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)] because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

As discussed above, this rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards and in light of the fact that EPA is required to make the OCS rules consistent with current COA requirements, it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in this action. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the final rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and toexplain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action 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))

Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is clarifying its approval process in 46 CFR Part 221 for requests relating to proposed transfers to foreign registry of U.S. documented vessels over 1000 gross tons. The approval process will require vessel owners to self-certify that the vessel(s) does not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in regulated quantities, and to provide notice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the transfer request. This process shall apply to all transfer requests filed on or after February 14, 2011, except as otherwise provided herein. In addition, the requirement for vessel owner self-certification will apply to all future approvals under the provisions for granting advance foreign transfer approvals pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 56101(b), regardless of when the application is filed. Vessel owners that receive advance approval under 46 U.S.C. 56101(b) will be required to submit a self-certification conforming to the language provided below, or as may be amended by MARAD, prior to transfer of the vessel to foreign registry, otherwise the prior approval is void. Vessels built in the United States after 1985 shall be exempted from these requirements.

Self-certification must be performed by a person with legal authority to act on behalf of the company. Self-certification means a written statement containing the following language: “Under civil and criminal penalties of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 2615), to the best of my knowledge and belief, I hereby certify that after the exercise of reasonable due diligence, the vessel(s) do(es) not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in amounts greater than or equal to 50 ppm as regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601et seq.).”The Maritime Administration will provide the EPA with up to 30 days notice prior to approving any transfer request. Applicants are advised to account for this processing time when submitting transfer requests.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order (Order) in WC Docket No. 02-60, FCC 11-101, adopted on June 20, 2011 and released on June 21, 2011. This Order was also released with a companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM). The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

1. In this Order, we adopt an interim rule permitting health care providers that are located in a “rural area” under the definition used by the Commission prior to July 1, 2005, and that have received a funding commitment from the rural health care program prior to July 1, 2005, to continue to be treated as if they are located in “rural” areas for purposes of determining eligibility for all universal service rural health care programs. In the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published elsewhere in this issue of theFederal Register, we seek comment on whether to make these “grandfathered” providers permanently eligible for discounted services under the rural health care program. Grandfathered providers do not currently qualify as “rural,” but play a key role in delivering health care services to surrounding regions that do qualify as “rural” today. Thus, we take these actions to ensure that health care providers located in rural areas can continue to benefit from connecting with grandfathered providers, and thereby provide health care to patients in rural areas.

2. In this order, we adopt an interim rule to allow all currently grandfathered health care providers to continue to qualify for discounted services until the Commission adopts permanent rules governing the eligibility of such providers to participate in rural health care programs. We find good cause to adopt this interim rule without notice and comment, and to make it effective upon publication in theFederal Registerrather than 30 days afterwards. For the reasons below, we find that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay adoption of this interim rule.

3. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that agencies provide notice in theFederal Registerand an opportunity for public comment on their proposed rules except,inter alia,“when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Notice and comment have been excused in emergency situations or where delay could result in serious harm. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA requires a substantive rule to be published not less than 30 days before its effective date, except “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.”

4. Without a change in our rules before June 30, 2011, currently grandfathered providers will lose eligibility for discounted services. In 2008, the Commission found that discontinuing services to these providers would “serve only to endanger the continued availability of telemedicine and telehealth services that [these] health care facilities provide.” For the reasons below, we find that such an outcome remains as likely to happen today as in 2008, and thus would be contrary to the public interest.

5. The record demonstrates that grandfathered facilities, while not located themselves in a “rural area” under current Commission definitions, play a key role in providing health care services to “fundamentally rural” areas. These providers are not located in large urbanized areas. In some instances, the grandfathered health care provider is a primary or secondary hub in a network that serves health care providers and patients located in areas that do qualify as “rural” under our current definition. Discontinuance of rural health care support would make vulnerable rural providers that connect to these hub sites. For example, three grandfathered facilities in Nebraska are hub hospitals in the Nebraska Statewide Telehealth Network (NSTN), a “hub-and-spoke” statewide telehealth network in which nearly 80 percent of providers are eligible for rural health care support. The Nebraska hub hospitals currently receive support for backbone lines that carry traffic for the entire NSTN, including traffic for rural sites, and the majority of interactions over the backbone lines benefit small rural health care providers and those they serve, not the hub site.

6. The record also provides numerous examples of the critical services that the petitioners and other affected health care providers offer to their patients. By its nature, telehealth allows health care providers that are not themselves located in “rural” areas to provide services to patients that are located in rural areas. In particular, many grandfathered facilities are located in regions experiencing specialty health care shortages, which these facilities are seeking to remedy via telemedicine. Services provided by grandfathered facilities include the following: emergency services, preventative care, interactive video, counseling, specialist consultations, oncology, psychiatry, neurology, tele-trauma, teleradiology, health professional and community education, and other telehealth and telemedicine applications.

7. Without continued funding, these facilities will likely be unable to continue providing telehealth services to rural areas. Virginia Telehealth Network (VTN) states that many grandfathered providers do not enjoy the benefit of competitively priced broadband services and would likely no longer be able to afford to continue their telehealth programs without discounted services. Similarly, NSTN states that if the Commission takes no action, its hub sites will be unable to sustain the costs of the backbone lines, which would directly sever the connection of 40 eligible rural sites from the NSTN. According to the NSTN, these 40 sites would be unable to connect to tertiary care centers, which serve as their referring hospitals, and to other rural health sites. Access to specialized care via telehealth in rural Nebraska would be compromised, and in some cases, cease to exist. More generally, the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) explains that the loss of existing facilities supported by universal service could “result in the loss of health care services to populations that have unmet health care needs, that are remote and rural to the location of those services, and are most disparate.” Thus, we find that discontinuance of funding could result in serious harm to affected rural health care providers and their patient populations, and such harm would be contrary to the public interest.

8. We note that continued grandfathering on an interim basis will also support important Commission, federal, and state health information technology (health IT) priorities. For example, the Tanana Chiefs Conference states that continued funding is needed to meet bandwidth requirements created by National Broadband Plan initiatives, adoption of electronic health record meaningful use requirements by HHS, and Alaska's statewide health information exchange initiative. VTN and the Office of Telemedicine of the University of Virginia Health System (UVA) explain that Virginia was recently awarded two federal rural health IT grants to create a demonstration tele-stroke network and to deliver high risk obstetric services. Both Virginia projects include grandfathered health care providers as partners, and elimination of discounted services to these providers would adversely impact the projects' ability to sustain the federal grants. Similarly,NSTN states it has been successful in developing a model, comprehensive, statewide network in which the federal government has invested over $1.4 million, but the discontinuance of funding to Nebraska's grandfathered hub hospitals would result in the transformation of this statewide network into isolated “mini” networks.

9. We also find that notice-and-comment and 30-day advance publication in theFederal Registeris unnecessary for this interim rule. The purpose of the notice-and-comment requirement is to allow interested parties to respond to the proposed rule and participate in the rulemaking process. In July 2010, the Nebraska Public Service Commission (Nebraska PSC) filed a petition requesting that the FCC permanently grandfather health care providers that were temporarily grandfathered until 2011. In response to the Nebraska PSC petition, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a public notice requesting comment on whether the Commission should grant the relief sought by the Nebraska PSC, either through permanent grandfather, permanent waiver, or other action, and interested parties had an opportunity to respond to the public notice. We note that all commenters, including all affected health care providers, support at least an interim extension of the grandfathering period. The 30-day advance publication requirement of section 553(d) is intended to inform affected parties of the proposed rule and afford them a reasonable time to adjust to the new regulations. The purpose of our interim rule, however, is to maintain thestatus quowhile we consider amending our rules permanently. Thus, as a practical matter, there is no “new” regulation to which grandfathered health care providers must adjust. Indeed, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association argues thatwithoutthe interim extension, grandfathered entities would be left without a needed “transition period * * * to accommodate for any lost USF revenues and to comply with” new requirements, and would be forced to “scramble for alternative technology solutions and funding sources.” In addition, as discussed above, grandfathered providers, in the aggregate, have historically received less than $1.4 million annually in discounted services, or less than 0.02 percent of the $8 billion universal service fund. Therefore, we find that the interim rule will not materially affect entities that contribute to the universal service fund, because their individual contributions will not change significantly. Based on the foregoing, we find good cause to adopt this interim rule without notice and comment.

10.Interim Rule.The interim rule adopted in thisOrderis being adopted without notice and comment, and therefore is not subject to Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

11.Proposed Permanent Rule.The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule-making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

12. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in theSecond Report and Order,70 FR 6365, February 7, 2005. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in theSecond Report and Order,including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received to theSecond Report and Orderor IRFA that specifically raised the issue of the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.

13. In this Order, we now indefinitely extend, and propose to adopt permanently, the Commission's prior determination to grandfather those health care providers who were eligible under the Commission's definition of “rural” prior to theSecond Report and Order.This has no effect on any parties that do not currently participate in the rural health care support program. It does not create any additional burden on small entities. We believe that this action imposes a minimal burden on the vast majority of entities, small and large, that are affected by this action.

14. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of the order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

15. In addition, the Order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in theFederal Register.

16.Congressional Review Act.The Commission will send a copy of this Order in 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). The interim rule contained in this Order shall take effect upon publication of a summary of theOrderin theFederal Registerfor the reasons stated therein.See id.Sec. 808(2).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 to read as follows:

I. Statutory Background

Section 306(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), as amended by section 202 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA; 42 U.S.C 11011et seq.), requires the Secretary of Transportation to regulate hazardous substances listed or designated under Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), as hazardous materials under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5128). PHMSA carries out the rulemaking responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 CFR 1.53(b). This final rule is necessary to comply with 42 U.S.C. 9656(a), as amended by Section 202 of SARA.

In carrying out the statutory mandate, PHMSA has no discretion to determine what is or is not a hazardous substance or the appropriate reportable quantity (RQ) for materials designated as hazardous substances. This authority is vested in EPA. In accordance with CERCLA requirements, EPA must issue final rules amending the list of CERCLA hazardous substances, including removing entries, before PHMSA can amend the list of hazardous substances in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA periodically revises the list of hazardous substances and RQs in the HMR as adjustments are made by EPA.

EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment on April 22, 2010 (75 FR 20942) and a final rule December 17, 2010 (75 FR 78918) removing saccharin and its salts from the List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities in 40 CFR 302.4 (Table 302.4) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. EPA received two comments in response to the NPRM, one supportive of removing saccharin and its salts from the list and one beyond the scope of the rulemaking. The amendment includes the removal of both the product name (saccharin) and the chemical name (1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one,1,1-dioxide). EPA based its decision on a review of evaluations conducted by key public health agencies concerning the carcinogenic and other potential toxicological effects of saccharin and its salts, as well as their own assessment of the waste generation and management information for saccharin and its salts. This review/assessment demonstrated that saccharin and its salts do not meet the criteria in their hazardous waste regulations for remaining on EPA's lists of hazardous constituents, hazardous wastes, and hazardous substances. Specifically, EPA's listing of saccharin and its salts as a hazardous substance was based solely upon the material being listed as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (see 40 CFR 261.33(f)). Thus, by no longer being listed hazardous wastes, there was no basis for retaining saccharin and its salts in Table 302.4.

This final rule revises the “List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities” that appears in Table 1 to Appendix A of § 172.101 by removing the entry for saccharin and its salts (including the chemical name and salts). This revision is being made for consistency with EPA's December 17, 2010 final rule removing saccharin and its salts from the List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities in Table 302.4. This final rule will enable shippers and carriers to properly identify CERCLA hazardous substances subject to HMR and EPA requirements, and subsequent notifications if a release of a hazardous substance occurs. In addition to the reporting requirements of the HMR found in §§ 171.15 and 171.16, a release of a hazardous substance is subject to EPA notification requirements under 40 CFR 302.6 and may be subject to the reporting requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 153.203.

PHMSA is publishing this final rule without notice and public procedure with good cause. As discussed in the “EPA Action” section above, EPA revised the list of hazardous substances through notice and public procedure. EPA has ultimate discretion when determining what is or is not a hazardous substance. PHMSA is statutorily mandated to list and regulate in the 49 CFR EPA's list of hazardous substances. Thus, it is unnecessary for PHMSA to again provide notice and public procedure to incorporate into the HMR the changes made by EPA.

This rulemaking is issued under authority of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in interstate, intrastate, and foreign commerce. This rulemaking is also issued under Section 306(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), as amended by section 202 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA; 42 U.S.C 11011 et seq.), which requires the Secretary of Transportation to regulate hazardous substances listed or designated under Section 101(14) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), as hazardous materials under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5128).

This final rule is not a significant rulemaking action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). This rulemaking conforms to the intent of Executive Order 13563. This rulemaking relieves regulatory burdens placed on shippers or carriers of saccharin and on its salts that may be subject to regulation under the 49 CFR based on being defined as a hazardous substance, and subsequent regulation as a hazardous material by removing saccharin and its salts from the list of hazardous substances found in Table 1 of Appendix A to 49 CFR 172.101.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule preempts State, local and Indian tribe requirements but does not adopt any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

The Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) that preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are:

(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;

(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;

(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or

(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, inspection, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.

This final rule addresses covered subject items (1), (2), and (3) above and would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. This rule is required by statute. Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at Sec. 5125(b)(2) that, if PHMSA issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, PHMSA must determine and publish in theFederal Registerthe effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. The effective date of Federal preemption for these requirements is September 26, 2011.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, and is required by statute, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) requires a Federal agency to assess the impact of a regulatory action on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to final rules that are preceded by notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Because this rule was not preceded by an NPRM, no assessment is required. EPA addressed the Regulatory Flexibility Act when it made the hazardous substances designation reflected in this rule.

This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure consideration of the potential impact of a rulemaking on small entities.

This final rule does not impose any new information collection burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

This final rule imposes no unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $140.8 million or more to either State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector.

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

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires a Federal agency to consider the consequences of a major Federal action and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The revision made to the “List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities” found in Table 1 of Appendix A to § 172.101 in this final rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Releases of hazardous substances have the potential to cause damages to the human environment. Releases can occur during any stage of transportation (i.e., loading, transport, unloading, etc.). When a release occurs, it may result in increased risk to public health and the environment such as increased human exposure to carcinogens or adverse impacts vegetation and wildlife surrounding the location of the release. EPA believes that saccharin and its salts, based on the results of reviews of available scientific information performed by National Toxicology Program and the International Agencyfor Research on Cancer, do not pose a present or potential risk of causing toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms. EPA believes the results, of these reviews as well as their own assessment of waste generation and management information for saccharin and its salts, indicate that saccharin and its salts do not meet the criteria for listing as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.11. EPA's listing of saccharin and its salts as a hazardous substance under CERCLA (40 CFR 302.4) was based solely upon being listed as hazardous wastes under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33(f)). Thus, we conclude there is no significant environmental impact associated with removing saccharin and its salts for the “List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities” found in Table 1 to Appendix A of 49 CFR 172.101 in this final rule.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that fishery management plans include a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level such that overfishing does not occur and that does not exceed the fishing level recommendation of a council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). AMs are also required to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overage of an ACL should it occur. The requirements for ACLs and AMs do not apply to fisheries for stocks that are subject to international fishery agreements in which the U.S. participates, or for species with life cycles of approximately one year. ACLs and AMs are also not required for species classified in a fishery management plan as “ecosystem component species,” which are generally non-target species, not determined to be subject to overfishing, approaching overfished, or overfished, not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished, and generally not retained for sale or personal use.

This final rule implements the mechanism that NMFS will use to specify ACLs (possibly including multi-year ACLs) and AMs in western Pacific fisheries. Briefly, the Council will recommend an ACL to NMFS at least two months before the start of a fishing year. The Council will base its recommendation on the SSC's fishing level recommendation for the subject species or fishery, and may not exceed it. At least one month before the fishing year starts, NMFS will request public comment on the proposed ACL. Before the start of the fishing year, NMFS will notify fishermen and the public of the final ACL specification.

NMFS will monitor the fishery on an ongoing basis throughout the fishing year. When an ACL is projected to be reached during the year, NMFS will notify fishermen and the public that fishing for the regulated stock will be restricted through one or more inseason accountability measures to ensure that the ACL is not exceeded. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, closing the fishery, closing specific areas, changing bag limits, or otherwise restricting effort or catch. Any inseason restriction will generally remain in effect until the end of the fishing year.

If inseason monitoring or subsequent data analyses indicate that an ACL was exceeded in the previous fishing year, the Council may recommend that NMFS reduce the ACL for the subsequent year by the amount of the overage.

This rule establishes only the procedures for specifying ACLs and AMs. The Council and NMFS will provide the public with opportunities to review and comment on the ACLs and AMs for each fishery at the time they are proposed.

On March 31, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for public comment (76 FR 17808). The public comment period ended on May 16, 2011. Additional background information on this final rule is found in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received two comments that were generally supportive of this action.

No changes were made from the proposed rule.

The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that the FEP amendments that establish a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs are necessary for the conservation and management of western Pacific fisheries, and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

NMFS will begin specifying ACLs and AMs for each fishery that requires them using the proposed notice-and-comment mechanism starting in fishing year 2011. When fishery-specific ACLs and AMs are specified through subsequent rulemaking, NMFS will assess each proposed specification for compliance with all applicable laws, including any relevant impacts on small businesses, organizations and small government jurisdictions, and will prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for that action, if warranted.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is amended as follows:

Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the FEP. In Amendment 2, the Council recommended that NMFS prohibit purse seine fishing in the U.S. EEZ around the Mariana Archipelago, including the CNMI and Guam, and prohibit pelagic longline fishing within 30 nm (approx. 56 km) of the CNMI. The recommended prohibition on purse seine fishing was intended to limit impacts on juvenile recruitment of bigeye tuna, and reduce the potential for localized depletion and catch competition between purse seine vessels and the pelagic fishing fleets of the CNMI and Guam. The recommended longline closed area near the CNMI was intended to minimize potential gear conflicts and catch competition between the local pelagic trolling fleet and the developing CNMI-based longline fishery (a 50-nm (93 km) longline prohibited area currently exists around Guam to prevent gear conflicts).

Additional background information on this final rule is found in the preamble to the proposed rule published on March 31, 2011 (76 FR 17811); the comment period ended on May 16, 2011. NMFS received two substantive comments, and responds as follows:

Comment 1:The longline prohibited area around the CNMI should be increased to 90 nm (167 km) from the proposed 30 nm to further protect marine life and seafood resources in the region.

Response:U.S. longline fishing in the Pacific is regulated stringently to minimize impacts on protected species and harvest fish sustainably. Requirements for this fishery include permits, specific gear configuration and identification, area restrictions monitored by a satellite vessel monitoring system, observer placement when requested, educational workshops, and reporting requirements for fishing activities and interactions with protected resources, and others.

The Council and NMFS assessed the potential impacts of longline prohibited areas ranging in size from 25 to 100 nm (46 to 185 km) around the CNMI, and concluded that a 30-nm zone best achieved the conservation and management objectives of the proposed amendment, while at the same time minimizing economic costs and ensuring sustained participation by fishermen. The 30-nm prohibited area encompasses the majority of the submarine habitat containing banks and reefs where small boats typically concentrate their fishing efforts. Excluding longline fishing from this zone will prevent gear conflicts and competition for catches between the small boats and larger longliners, and will reduce the likelihood of longline gear entanglement on the banks and reefs, thereby protecting reefs and the marine life that depends on it.

Larger prohibited areas would impose higher travel costs to the longline vessels with little to no additional benefit of conserving stocks of pelagic fish or protected resources, or minimizing the potential for gear conflicts with the small boat fishery. A 30-nm prohibited area is not so large as to prevent longline fishing activity, which will allow for the development of the longline fishery and provide economic benefits to the CNMI.

Comment 2:There is little demonstrated need or justification for the proposed prohibition on purse seine fishing because there is virtually no history of purse seine fishing in the Mariana Archipelago, and there is little evidence that purse seine fishing negatively impacts other pelagic fisheries in the area. Also, an EEZ closure will disadvantage the United States in its negotiations to renew the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, as the proposed prohibition on purse seine fishing in the U.S. EEZ might encourage other Pacific Island parties to take similar protective measures in their national waters.

Response:NMFS agrees, and this final rule will not implement the proposed prohibition on purse seine fishing in the EEZ around the Mariana Archipelago. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS may partially approve a plan or amendment to the FEP offered by the Council. When partially approving an amendment, NMFS must specify the applicable law with which the amendment is inconsistent, explain the nature of the inconsistency, and recommend to the Council actions it could take to conform the amendment to the applicable law.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to consider ten National Standards when implementing fishery conservation and management measures. National Standard 2 requires such measures to be based on the best scientific information available, and requires fishery management actions to be founded on thorough analyses that allow NMFS to rationally conclude that the selected alternative will accomplish legitimate conservation and management objectives. The scientific analysis in Amendment 2 presented inconclusive evidence of a negative impact of purse seine fishing on other fisheries and fish stocks, with the possible exception of some localized impacts on trolling catch rates over small distances near American Samoa. Nonetheless, the Council recommended prohibiting U.S. purse seine fishing throughout the entire EEZ around the Mariana Archipelago. That recommendation is not supported by the best available scientific evidence on the need to reduce interactions between the purse seine and local trolling fisheries in the area around the CNMI, and is,therefore, inconsistent with National Standard 2. Accordingly, NMFS did not approve the proposed purse seine prohibition, and it is not part of this final rule. The Council may revisit the issue if activities by U.S. purse seine vessels change, or if new scientific information is presented.

The proposed rule contained provisions that would have defined purse seine fishing and prohibited purse seine fishing within the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI. Those provisions were not approved, so the final rule does not include the definition or prohibition on purse seine fishing. The final rule does implement the Council's recommended prohibited area for longline fishing around the CNMI. This final rule also makes administrative changes to the pelagic fishing regulations: all pelagic fishing prohibited areas (existing longline prohibited areas in Hawaii and Guam, the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas, and the new CNMI longline prohibited area) are combined into 50 CFR 665.806.

The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that the part of Amendment 2 that pertains to a prohibited area for pelagic longline fishing in the CNMI is necessary for the conservation and management of CNMI pelagic fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. Although this final rule does not implement all of the proposed measures, the determination in the proposed rule that this final action will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities remains unchanged. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

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