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

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule increases the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil produced in the Far West that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2012.

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

The original salable quantity and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year were recommended by the Committee at its October 13, 2010, meeting. The Committee recommended salable quantities of 694,774 pounds and 1,012,983 pounds, and allotment percentages of 34 percent and 44 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oil. A proposed rule was published in theFederal Registeron March 4, 2011 (76 FR 11971). Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from interested persons until April 4, 2011. No comments were received. A final rule establishing the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year was published in theFederal Registeron May 13, 2011 (76 FR 27852).

The Committee met again on August 17, 2011, to consider amending the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year. At the meeting, the Committee recommended increasing the salable quantities to 733,913 pounds and 1,266,161 pounds, and allotment percentages to 36 percent and 55 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oil. The 2011-2012marketing year salable quantities and allotment percentages were subsequently amended to those levels by an interim rule published in theFederal Registeron October 6, 2011 (76 FR 61933). Comments on the interim rule were solicited from interested persons until December 5, 2011. No comments were received in response to the interim rule. A final rule establishing the amended salable quantities and allotment percentages was published in theFederal Registeron February 3, 2012 (77 FR 5385).

This rule further revises the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2012. Pursuant to authority contained in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight member Committee met on February 22, 2012, to consider pertinent market information on the current supply, demand, and price of spearmint oil. In a vote with seven members in favor and one member opposed, the Committee recommended that the 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage be increased by 7 percent, from 36 percent to 43 percent. The Committee member that voted against the increase concurred with the rest of the Committee members that an increase was justified; however, he felt that a 7 percent increase was an excessive response to the current Scotch spearmint oil marketing conditions.

Thus, taking into consideration the following discussion, this rule increases the 2011-2012 marketing year salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil to 876,596 pounds and 43 percent.

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

The total industry allotment base for Scotch spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year was initially estimated by the Committee to be 2,043,453 pounds. When that allotment base was applied to the originally established allotment percentage of 34 percent, the initially established 2011-2012 marketing year salable quantity was set at 694,774 pounds.

The total allotment base is adjusted at the end of each marketing year to account for the bona fide effort provision of the order. In accordance with § 985.53(e), producers must make a bona fide effort to produce a quantity of oil equal to or greater than their allotment base. Should a producer fail to produce that amount, their allotment base is reduced by an amount equal to the unproduced portion. The production data used to accurately make this adjustment to the total industry allotment base is not available until after the end of the marketing year. Consequently, since the rule that established the 2011-2012 marketing year initial allotment percentage and salable quantity for Scotch spearmint oil was published prior to the end of the 2010-2011 marketing year, an estimate of the total industry allotment base was relied upon in the calculation of the initial salable quantity for the 2011-2012 marketing year.

After the end of the 2010-2011 marketing year on May 31, 2011, however, the Committee recalculated the final total industry allotment base for Scotch spearmint oil to be 2,038,595 pounds rather than 2,043,453 pounds. The 4,858 pound difference between the estimated number and the final number is the amount of Scotch spearmint oil allotment base that producers failed to produce during the 2010-2011 marketing year.

The Committee met again in August 2011 to consider the current market conditions of the spearmint oil industry and to recommend increases in allotment percentages and salable quantities for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil. The allotment percentage and salable quantity for Scotch spearmint oil was subsequently increased in an interim rule that was finalized February 3, 2012 (77 FR 5385). That rule increased the allotment percentage 2 percent and effectively increased the 2011-2012 marketing year salable quantity by 142,683 pounds. The total salable quantity was increased to 733,913 pounds and was calculated by applying the increased allotment percentage (36 percent) to the revised total industry allotment base of 2,038,595 pounds and adjusted for rounding.

This interim rule further increases the allotment percentage and salable quantity for the remainder of the 2011-2012 marketing year, which ends May 31, 2012. The Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity is increased from 733,913 pounds to 876,596 pounds, and the allotment percentage from 36 percent to 43 percent. The additional amount of Scotch spearmint oil is made available by releasing oil from the reserve pool. The reserve pool is composed of Scotch spearmint oil that producers have produced in prior years in excess of their annual allotment and is restricted in its disposition. The oil is held in storage and may only be released to fill the producer's future production deficiencies or when additional oil is needed to satisfy normal market demand. The reserve is an important component of volume regulation, providing a mechanism to supply the market in times of unanticipated increases in the demand for spearmint oil. As of February 1, 2012, the Committee estimated the reserve pool of Scotch spearmint oil to be 366,988 pounds.

When the allotment percentage increase established by this rule is applied to each individual producer, that producer may take up to an amount equal to such allotment from their reserve of Scotch spearmint oil. Producers that do not have excess oil in the reserve pool equal to or greater than their respective share of the pro rata increase in the salable quantity will not be able to exercise the full marketing rights associated with such an increase. Also, pursuant to §§ 985.56 and 985.156, producers with excess oil are not able to transfer such excess oil to other producers to fill deficiencies in annual allotments after October 31 of each marketing year. As a result, the Committee has calculated that deficiencies in individual producer's oil reserves will most likely result in a reduction in the amount of Scotch spearmint oil that will actually made available to the market by this rule. The Committee estimates that as much as 24,453 pounds of the additional salable quantity will not actually enter the market.

Therefore, the anticipated effect of the 7 percent increase in the salable percentage established by this rule is that an estimated total of 1,079,384 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil will be available for the 2011-2012 marketing year. This amount is lower that the established salable quantity and accounts for the expected producer reserve pool deficiencies. The Committee believes the net effect of this rule is to release an estimated additional 118,230 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil into the market.

The following summarizes the Committee recommendations:

(A) Estimated 2011-2012 Allotment Base—2,043,453 pounds. This is the estimate on which the original 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage was based.

(B) Revised 2011-2012 Allotment Base—2,038,595 pounds. This is 4,858 pounds less than the estimated allotment base of 2,043,453 pounds due to the accounting for producers that failed to produce all of their 2011-2012 allotment.

(C) Original 2011-2012 Allotment Percentage—34 percent. This was unanimously recommended by the Committee on October 13, 2010.

(D) Original 2011-2012 Salable Quantity—694,774 pounds. This figure is 34 percent of the originally estimated 2011-2012 allotment base of 2,043,453.

(E) Prior Revision to the 2011-2012 Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage:

(1) Increase in Allotment Percentage—2 percent. The Committee recommended a 2 percent increase at its August 17, 2011, meeting.

(2) 2011-2012 Allotment Percentage—36 percent. This figure is derived by adding the increase of 2 percent to the originally established 2011-2012 allotment percentage of 34 percent.

(3) Calculated Revised 2011-2012 Salable Quantity—733,913 pounds. This figure is 36 percent of the revised 2011-2012 allotment base of 2,038,595 pounds, plus 19 pounds to account for a rounding adjustment.

(4) Computed Increase in the 2011-2012 Salable Quantity—40,772 pounds. This figure is 2 percent of the revised 2011-2012 allotment base of 2,038,595.

(F) Current Revision to the 2011-2012 Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage effectuated by this rule:

(1) Increase in Allotment Percentage—7 percent. The Committee recommended a 7 percent increase at its February 22, 2012, meeting.

(2) 2011-2012 Allotment Percentage—43 percent. This figure is derived by adding the increase of 7 percent to the revised 2011-2012 allotment percentage of 36 percent.

(3) Calculated Revised 2011-2012 Salable Quantity—876,596 pounds. This figure is 43 percent of the revised 2011-2012 allotment base of 2,038,595 pounds.

(4) Computed Increase in the 2011-2012 Salable Quantity—142,702 pounds. This figure is 7 percent of the revised 2011-2012 allotment base of 2,038,595 pounds.

The 2011-2012 marketing year began on June 1, 2011, with an estimated carry-in of 227,241 pounds of salable Scotch spearmint oil. When the estimated carry-in is added to the revised 2011-2012 salable quantity of 876,596 pounds, the result is a total available supply of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year of 1,103,837 pounds. However, the Committee estimates that only 1,079,384 will actually be available to the market given producer reserve pool deficiencies. Of this amount, 915,964 pounds of oil has already been sold or committed for the 2011-2012 marketing year. This would leave approximately 163,420 pounds to fulfill market needs for the remainder of the marketing year.

In making this recommendation, the Committee considered all available information on price, supply, and demand. The Committee also considered reports and other information from handlers and producers in attendance at the meeting and reports given by the Committee manager from handlers and producers who were not in attendance. By increasing the 2011-2012 Scotch spearmint oil salable percentage by 7 percent, an additional 142,702 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil is theoretically made available to the market. However, as previously discussed, deficiencies in producer's reserves are expected to limit the amount of Scotch spearmint oil that is actually released into the market.

Scotch spearmint oil handlers originally estimated that the trade demand for Scotch oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year may be 850,000 pounds. Sales and commitments for Scotch spearmint oil have already eclipsed that estimate, and the industry expects that market activity will continue through the end of the marketing year. The Committee believes that this rule will release enough oil to satisfy the demand for Scotch spearmint oil for the remainder of the 2011-2012 marketing year and will carry over a sufficient quantity of Scotch spearmint oil into the 2012-2013 marketing year to adequately supply the market.

When the Committee made its original recommendation for the establishment of the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2011-2012 marketing year, and again when it recommended the first increase, it anticipated that its actions would provide the industry with an ample available supply. In the interim, the Scotch spearmint oil market has experienced dynamic changes in the demand for oil. The Committee believes that the supply of Scotch spearmint oil that is available to the market without the issuance of this rule would be insufficient to satisfy the current demand at reasonable price levels. Therefore, the industry may not be able to adequately meet market demand without this increase.

Based on its analysis of available information, USDA has determined that the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year should be increased to 876,596 pounds and 43 percent, respectively.

This rule relaxes the regulation of Scotch spearmint oil and will allow producers to meet market demand while improving producer returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this rule, the Committee's revised marketing policy statement for the 2011-2012 marketing year has been reviewed by USDA. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends implementing volume regulations or recommends revisions to existing volume regulations, meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order. During its discussion of revising the 2011-2012 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) prospective production of each class of oil; (4) total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed.

The increase in the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage allows for anticipated market needs for this class of oil. In determining anticipated market needs, consideration by the Committee was given to historical sales, and changes and trends in production and demand.

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

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

There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order and approximately 32 producers of Scotch spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 8 of the 32 Scotch spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

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

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

This rule revises the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2011-2012 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2011. This rule increases the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity from 733,913 pounds to 876,596 pounds and the allotment percentage from 36 percent to 43 percent.

The use of volume control regulation allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Volume control is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and likely does not result in fewer retail sales of such products. Without volume control, producers would not be limited in the production and marketing of spearmint oil. Under those conditions, the spearmint oil market would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The marketing order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry for nearly three decades and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.

Based on projections available at the meeting, the Committee considered a number of alternatives to this increase. The Committee not only considered leaving the salable quantity and allotment percentage unchanged, but also considered other potential levels of increase. The Committee reached its recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information, and believes that the levels recommended will achieve the objectives sought. Without the increase, the Committee believes the industry would not be able to satisfactorily meet market demand.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 22, 2012, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

This rule invites comments on a change to the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil for the 2011-2012 marketing year. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in theFederal Registerbecause: (1) This rule increases the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil that may be marketed during the marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2012; (2) the current quantity of Scotch spearmint oil may be inadequate to meet demand for the 2011-2012 marketing year, thus making the additional oil available as soon as is practicable will be beneficial to both handlers and producers; (3) the Committee recommended these changes at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0064, dated April 7, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF50-53-061, dated January 13, 2011; and Service BulletinSBF50-53-062, dated January 13, 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.

There are no products of this type currently registered in the United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

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-2012-0333; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-085-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);

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.

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:

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 October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62653), and proposed to supersede AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR 2795, January 16, 2008). 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.

FedEx noted that Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06, dated August 31, 2011.

We infer that FedEx is requesting that we reference Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06, dated August 31, 2011, in this AD. We agree and have reviewed Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06, dated August 31, 2011. We have added this reference to paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (n) of this AD as an optional source of service information for doing the required actions.

We have revised certain paragraph headers throughout this AD. We have also revised the wording in paragraphs (h) and (m) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent of those paragraphs.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 62653, October 11, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 62653, October 11, 2011).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 61 products of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators 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 on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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 (76 FR 62653, October 11, 2011), 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 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM was published in theFederal Registeron January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2236). That SNPRM 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 SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 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 SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 16 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2.5 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 $1,088 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $20,808, or $1,300.50 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $42.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

Discussion

On October 26, 2011, at 76 FR 66209, theFederal Registerpublished our Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters with a tail rotor blade assembly (blade) part numbers (P/N) 92170-11000-044, -045, and -046, with a serial number with a prefix of “A111” and a number equal to or less than “-00585,” installed, certificated in any category. That NPRM proposed to require inspecting each blade to determine if the wire mesh is mislocated and replacing the blade with an airworthy blade if the wire mesh is mislocated. The proposed requirements were intended to detect mislocated blade wire mesh and to prevent spar delamination, loss of the blade tip cap during a lightning strike, blade imbalance, loss of a blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

Sikorsky issued Special Service Instructions SSI No. 92-021A, Revision A, dated October 21, 2009 (SSI), which specifies inspecting the blade for mislocated blade wire mesh. Two options are identified in the SSI. One option is to conduct an eddy current inspection and the other option is to conduct a visual inspection after sanding to determine if there is mislocated wire mesh.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for formatting changes. These formatting changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 44 helicopters of U.S. Registry. There are 486 suspect blades worldwide and we assume 29 percent (141) of those blades may be on helicopters of U.S. registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate that inspecting a blade for mislocated wire mesh will take about 4 work-hours per blade, assuming all operators opt to do the blade sanding inspection rather than the eddy current inspection, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $13,000 for each blade repaired by the manufacturer or $180,000 for each new blade. The total cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $3,215,940, assuming 51 blades are found with mislocated wire mesh, and assuming 36 of those blades are replaced with blades repaired by the manufacturer and 15 blades are replaced with new blades.

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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron November 14, 2007 (72 FR 64005) (corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Safair and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM Aero) concurred with the proposed requirement to implement the Lockheed Martin Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Series Aircraft Service Manual Publication (SMP), Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), SMP 515-C-SSID, Change 1, dated September 10, 2010 (“the SSID”).

Lynden Air Cargo (Lynden) agreed that the SSID would provide an acceptable way to comply with the maintenance program requirements of the inspection procedures specified in section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a), which was superseded by section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109).

The SSID identified eight individual ADs that affect the principal structural elements (PSEs) identified in Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) of the SSID. (The individual ADs are identified in the SSID in Section 2.0, Table 2.1, pages 2-3.) Lynden requested additional time to comment on the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to compare the compliance intervals and standards with those in the proposed AD, the individual ADs, and the continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP). Lynden was unable to determine how the SSID addresses the existing ADs, and added that the proposed AD did not indicate that it would supersede the existing rules.

We reopened the comment period to allow additional time for operators to comment on the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)). We also provide the following clarification of the relationship among the various programs. The SSID can be used to show compliance for the baseline inspections for section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Aging Airplane Safety Rule (section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)). This AD adds other more broad and specific inspections that supplement but do not conflict with other ADs. The SSID inspections should identify safety issues related to the PSEs. When a SSID inspection reveals a certain number of positive findings on a PSE, that part—and only that part—of the PSE will be removed from the SSID and addressed in an individual AD and associated service bulletin. The remainder of the PSE will remain in the SSID and will be subject to the SSID inspections only. If the problem area is not removed from the SSID, the SSID requirements still apply, but at a lower priority until the area is removed. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

The proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) stated that members of the airline industry participated with Lockheed in working group sessions and developed the Supplemental Structural Inspection Program (SSIP) for the affected airplanes, but Lynden reported that it was not consulted by the type certificate (TC) holder, and it was not aware of or invited to participate in any working group on this issue. Further, Lynden stated that it understood that the TC holder used military operational and design data for the basis of the SSID. Lynden, as the lead carrier for the Model L-382 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) and the largest part 121 operator of the affected airplanes, would have provided valuable input on the civil operation and maintenance of the affected airplanes. Lynden requested that we consult the service difficulty report (SDR) database for the operator's submitted data regarding the structural inspection findings of the operator's CAMP.

According to Lynden, the SDRs ensure that the airplane is in an airworthy condition because fatigue cracks are found and reported before any adverse effect on airworthiness. The existing inspections in the CAMP reveal cracks based on existing inspection intervals, which, in most cases, are identical to the inspection intervals in the CAMP now being used by the operators. The SDRs also prove the accuracy of the evaluation by the FAA and design approval holder (DAH) of commercial usage (military usage for baseline structure is very similar to commercial usage), based on objective criteria and information submitted by the operators to the SDR database. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) based on the existing CAMP.

The information in the SSID is based on military usage, which defined the baseline inspection requirements. Operators may be allowed to extend the inspection intervals by completing an operational usage evaluation (OUE) as specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-84, and requesting approval of an AMOC from the FAA. Recent analysis of the usage data has shown that typical commercial operations of the affected airplanes are at higher payloads than military operations with significantly less time in training. Analysis and in-service cracking data have also shown that the crack growth rate severity of typical commercial usage is very similar to the baseline military usage. Therefore, the FAA's evaluation of commercial usage is based on objective criteria and information submitted by the operators. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden noted that the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) was prompted by incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. The proposed AD was intended to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. Lynden reported there have been no accidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion relating to this type design on its airplanes. Lynden asserted that the program required by section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) ensures that such accidents will not happen. Lynden therefore questioned the conclusion that an unsafe condition even exists. Lynden alleged that we have not provided objective evidence of the unsafe condition in the affected airplanes, but have general concerns regarding aging airplanes. Lynden added that continued airworthiness of an airplane is ensured by the development of extensive inspection and maintenance programs. In Lynden's case, those maintenance requirements are detailed in an extensive CAMP, which has been proven to ensure the airworthiness of its fleet for over 97,000 flight hours.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we withdraw the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), because no unsafe condition has been identified. We disagree. The DAH performed several full-scale fatigue tests on the Model L-382, and has developed a large data bank of service history(including SDRs) to identify problem areas and PSEs that provide objective evidence that an unsafe condition exists. The damage tolerance analysis (DTA) assessments established inspection intervals after many of the PSEs were identified. Initially the fatigue test and service history data were used only to identify the problem areas (i.e., PSEs) that were to receive DTA evaluation, and to validate the DTA data. Every PSE received a DTA assessment. As part of the assessment of each PSE, the DAH found that in some instances the DTA did not correlate well with the fatigue test and service life data. In these instances, the fatigue test and service life data were used to establish the inspection intervals that are specified in the SSID.

Lynden has developed an FAA-approved, operator-specific CAMP for its fleet in accordance with section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109) based upon the latest guidance and documents from the DAH. The latest guidance and documents from the DAH were provided in the Lockheed Martin Model L382, SMP 515-C-MASTER Report, dated November 2010. This document should already be incorporated into the operator's CAMP. Therefore, if the operator has been performing its CAMP as required, adequate information is available to perform the required inspections. The operator should already be in compliance with the SSID. If the operator has made changes to the CAMP to meet its maintenance schedules that were previously approved by the FAA, the subject operator may request approval of an AMOC to the SSID based on the existing CAMP, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (q) in this final rule. If the AMOC is approved by the FAA, the operator will not need to change the CAMP except for minor changes provided in the SSID, and would already be in compliance with this AD except for the minor changes.

As discussed previously, the SSID addresses an identified safety issue on the affected airplanes and therefore must be mandated by an AD. The inspection requirements in the SSID are required for the continued safe operation of the aircraft. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden asserted that it is already required to comply with the intent and scope of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) through accomplishment of the CAMP, which ensures the continued airworthiness of its fleet through constant analysis and surveillance. The CAMP and the improvements required through the CAMP procedures ensure that fatigue cracks will be detected before becoming critical. The CAMP will be used as the basis for compliance with section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) (which was superseded by section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)). Lynden stated that the proposed requirements of the SSID are comparable to the requirements already imposed under section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a), and the proposed grace period will provide nearly the same timeline. Lynden noted that the proposed AD stated that fatigue cracking may increase as a result of transport airplanes reaching or exceeding their design service objective (DSO), and as a result of their increased utilization and longer operation. Lynden asserted that the proposed AD would be redundant with the requirements for the SSIP, which are contained in section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a). Section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) already requires incorporation of FAA-approved damage-tolerance-based inspections into the maintenance program for aircraft structure susceptible to fatigue cracking for the airplane to continue operating after December 20, 2010.

Lynden was concerned that the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) will not establish compliance with section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) and will cause confusion and/or duplicative recordkeeping requirements regarding whether a particular inspection is acceptable for compliance. If the AD does establish compliance with section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.380a), then it is unnecessary and redundant, since section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) will ensure the aircraft's structural integrity. On the other hand, if the AD does not establish complete compliance, section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) needs to be reviewed to ensure that it establishes the level of safety originally anticipated by the FAA. In either case, both requirements should not be needed to establish continuous structural integrity of the affected airplanes.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we withdraw the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) as unnecessary because it is redundant with the CAMP or the requirements of section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)). Some inspections were not included in the SMP-515-C inspection program, and some operators do not have the latest revision to this program, including the changes made by the SSID and required by this AD. So an AD is necessary to mandate the implementation of the SSID. Further, an AD would be necessary to ensure continued operational safety if a related operational rule is changed in the future. Except for some minor changes made by the DAH and approved by the FAA, any operator with a CAMP already meets the requirements of the SSID and this AD; no additional work would be required, and no alternative method of compliance would be necessary to demonstrate compliance. However, the SSID can also be used as a means to show compliance for the baseline inspections for the section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)) (which superseded section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR121.370a). That rule requires operators to incorporate FAA-approved damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures into the maintenance program for airplane structure susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure on airplanes meeting the following criteria:

• Transport category airplanes

• Airplanes type certificated after January 1, 1958

• Turbine power airplanes

• Airplanes having a maximum type-certificated passenger seating capacity of 30 or more, or a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more

Those airplanes must have FAA-approved damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures incorporated into the maintenance program for airplane structure susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. The SSID meets this requirement for the affected airplanes. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.

Safair, Lynden, and LM Aero requested that we change paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), which would have required repair “using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.”

Safair requested that we instead require repair “in accordance with an FAA-approved method” to alleviate unnecessary burdens on both the Atlanta ACO and the operators.

Lynden noted that the preamble to the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) explained that the AD would allow the use of FAA-approved methods for the repair, but the proposed regulatory language would actually require each repair to be specifically approved by the ACO. Lynden requested that the preamble and regulatory language agree. Lynden believed that requiring approval for each repair is an unworkable and unacceptable regulatory burden for operators and the FAA. Lynden added that a typical Boeing SSID AD does not contain such an onerous paragraph, but allows cracked structure to be repaired in accordance with an FAA-approved method. Lynden added that the FAA's Transport Airplane Directorate has specifically promised to use the following language: “Cracked structure must be repaired prior to further flight in accordance with an FAA-approved method.” If the suggested language is used, operators can perform repairs in accordance with previously acceptable methods, techniques, and practices that are based on approved data—whenever they find cracked structure, not just when performing inspections required by the AD. Lynden asserted that it is extremely important for the FAA to understand that an operator with an effective CAMP is constantly inspecting for structural integrity, not just when an AD requires an inspection. To ensure proper alignment with their responsibilities to ensure the continuous airworthiness of the affected airplanes, operators must not face conflicting, overlapping, or confusing compliance requirements.

LM Aero interpreted paragraph (n) in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) as a requirement to obtain an approval letter from the Atlanta ACO for every repair carried out on PSEs with cracks detected by the SSID inspections. LM Aero added that, in many cases, cracking detected by the SMP-515-C inspection procedures in the SSID can be repaired with existing FAA-approved repair procedures. Including the additional requirement to obtain specific approval letters for each repair is likely to place significant burden on both operators and the FAA. LM Aero requested that we revise paragraph (n) of the proposed AD to add the following provision:

Lynden concurred with LM Aero's comment.

We agree with the commenters' rationale. Accordingly, we have revised the final rule to add new Note 1 to paragraph (o) of this AD, which explains the source of guidance for repairing damage. We also added new Note 2 to paragraph (o) of this AD to explain that operators may contact the Manager, Atlanta ACO, for information regarding the use of published service data approved by the FAA for these repairs, as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

LM Aero and Lynden requested that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to be consistent with the SSID, which uses the term “principle structural element (PSE)” instead of “structural significant item (SSI).”

We agree to standardize the terminology. The original term was “Structural Significant Item (SSI).” Although the two terms are currently used interchangeably, we agree to use the latest terminology in this AD. We have revised the final rule to replace “SSI” with “PSE.”

Lynden stated that neither the FAA nor the operators can ensure compliance with the AD without a clear understanding of how the DTA was conducted and without the required DTA values. If we were to accept LM Aero's inspection intervals as “DTA values,” Lynden requested that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to correspond with the SSID. Lynden noted, for example, that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD states, in part, “The required DTA value for each PSE is listed in the SSID.” Lynden asserted that there are no DTA values or ratings listed in the subject SSID.

We partially agree. We agree to accept the DAH's inspection intervals (presented in the SSID as “DTA values”), and we have revised the final rule to correspond to the SSID by changing “DTA values” to “inspection intervals” throughout this final rule. We disagree that compliance with the AD cannot be ensured without clear understanding of how the DTA was conducted and without DTA values. The operator is required to set up a tracking system for each inspection and maintain that system at all times. The operator and the FAA can track the status of the inspections using inspection numbers assigned to each inspection requirement by the operator or they can track the inspections by the procedure/card number defined by the SSID document or any other procedure approved by the FAA. The DAH has given an adequate description of its DTA methodology in Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) of the SSID. This methodology should provide the operators an understanding of how the DTA was conducted. In addition, the FAA is familiar with the DAH's DTA procedures and has a good understanding of how the DTA was conducted. The FAA has reviewed and approved the DTA analysis and inspection intervals as approved in the SSID. This information cannot be released to the operators because it is the DAH's proprietary data. In addition, we have determined that operators do not need this information to do the SSID inspections.

LM Aero and Lynden requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to include only those airplanes on which the SMP-515-C inspection program has not been incorporated and the applicable service bulletins identified in the SSID have not been accomplished. Lynden added that, according to Section 2.0 (Introduction) of the SSID, some operators have not updated the SMP-515-C inspection program in many years, and some commercially certified aircraft in other countries may not have an SMP-515-C inspection program. Lynden noted that the TC holder issued the SSID only for those operators without a CAMP or an updated one, and the AD shouldtherefore apply only to airplanes that are not subject to section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a).

We disagree to change the applicability. The SSID addresses a safety issue on all Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes as the specified unsafe condition is likely to exist on all of these products. The inspections in the SSID are necessary for the continued safe operation of all applicable aircraft, and must be mandated by an AD. If the operator has been performing the CAMP as required, the operator is in compliance with the SSID, except for the minor changes. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden alleged that the SDR database is directly related to the specific inspections contemplated by the SSID and the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), and that the required reports are evidence that the FAA-approved part 121 CAMP is keeping the aircraft in an airworthy condition; i.e., defects are found and repaired before there is any adverse impact on airworthiness.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the applicability to remove airplanes with CAMPs. We disagree. The purpose of the SDRs is to help the FAA identify and address problem areas in the fleet before a catastrophic failure occurs. The SDRs are used to justify the inspection intervals in the SSID. The SDRs help maintain affected airplanes in an airworthy condition because the reports advise of fatigue cracks found before any adverse effect on airworthiness is encountered. The existing inspections in the CAMP reveal cracks based on existing inspection intervals. The inspection intervals in the SSID are in most cases identical to the inspection intervals in the CAMPs now being used by operators. The SDRs also verify the accuracy of the FAA's and DAH's evaluations of commercial usage and are based on objective criteria and information submitted by the operators to the SDR database. Not all affected operators use a CAMP or have equal maintenance programs. Consequently, and based on the SDRs of Lynden and other operators, we have determined that the PSEs on the affected airplanes are a potential safety issue that needs to be addressed.

We have chosen to address this issue with an AD that will mandate the inspections provided in the SSID, through an FAA-approved SSIP. We intend to reduce the workload for the DAH, operators, and the FAA, and still accomplish the intent of the AD. The SSID meets the requirements for all Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. Except for some minor changes made by the DAH and approved by the FAA, any operator with a CAMP is already in compliance with the SSID. If the inspections per the CAMP have been accomplished, except for the minor changes that may be incorporated into the program and accomplished as required, no additional work is required by the operator. If the operator has changed the CAMP to meet maintenance schedules previously approved by the FAA, the operator may request approval of an AMOC to the AD based on the existing CAMP. If an AMOC request is approved by the Atlanta ACO, the operator would not have to change the CAMP, except for minor changes, and would already be in compliance with this AD.

In summary, airplanes with CAMPs are in compliance because either (1) the initial inspection has been done in accordance with the CAMP or (2) the inspection is not yet due, in which case the inspection would be done in accordance with the SSID. But airplanes with CAMPs are still affected by the AD because the repetitive inspection intervals may not agree between the SSID and the CAMP. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden requested that Section 3.0 (Affected Aircraft) be removed from the SSID. Lynden asserted that an AD identifies the affected airplanes, and conflicting information in the SSID does not aid clarity.

We disagree with the request. Paragraph (c) in this AD identifies the affected airplanes, and the service documents identify the respective individual affected serial numbers. Where there are differences, the AD prevails. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

While the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) reported there are “91 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet,” Lynden stated that the proposed AD would affect U.S.-registered airplanes only.

We agree to provide clarification. Lynden is correct that the AD affects U.S.-registered airplanes only. The quoted statement is from the Cost of Compliance section of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)). In that section, we report the number of affected airplanes operated worldwide, but provide the cost estimates for only U.S.-registered airplanes. All airplanes are identified in the AD; airplanes that are later added to the U.S. registry will also be affected by this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

LM Aero stated that the compliance times for the initial inspections specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) provide operators with considerable time to implement inspection requirements that should already be in their inspection programs. LM Aero agreed that a grace period to initiate the inspections (36 months as specified in the proposed AD) might be necessary, but recommends against exceeding the “initial” interval plus one “recurring” interval by more than 12 months. LM Aero added that the compliance times, including a grace period exceeding twice the “initial” interval on wing PSEs, would exceed the crack growth “Safety Limit” defined in Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) of the SSID, and would contravene the intent of section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-56B, “Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes,” dated March 7, 2008 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c41f92c5f55751a58625740800686473/$FILE/AC%2091-56B.pdf). LM Aero recommended the initial compliance times in the following table.

Lynden concurred with this comment.

We disagree with the requests to revise the compliance time. Most SSIDs provide operators 12 months to incorporate the inspections into the maintenance program. Then the compliance time starts for those inspections that have exceeded the threshold; otherwise the first inspection is due at the threshold. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

LM Aero questioned the repetitive inspection intervals specified in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) for the “Special Condition” of the sloping longeron at the fuselage station (FS) 1041 fitting (per Special Inspections card (SP) 113). LM Aero stated that the proposed 12-month interval would be too frequent and would add a significant burden on the operator to continually remove the FS 1041 fitting to perform the inspection. Furthermore, frequent repeated removal would likely result in excessive over-sizing of the holes, which would require replacement of the sloping longeron (FS 737 to 1041). The intent of this inspection is to provide an opportunity to inspect the longeron for stress corrosion cracking that is hidden under the FS 1041 fitting. Although stress corrosion cracks that have not propagated beyond the FS 1041 fitting do not affect the structural integrity of the longeron, they will eventually propagate out from under the fitting for which the SSID recommends replacement. The need to replace the FS 1041 fitting depends on crack findings during the task associated with SP-109—which will also detect relatively long stress corrosion cracks in the sloping longeron by the x-ray primary procedure No. 2. Lynden concurred with this comment.

For the reasons provided by LM Aero, we agree to revise the repetitive intervals, specified in paragraph (l) in this final rule, from 12 months to an interval that corresponds to the “Special Condition” inspection interval currently in the SSID, which requires the inspection when the FS 1041 fitting is replaced. Paragraph (l) in this final rule agrees with the SSID revision for the inspection requirements for PSE 53-50-13.

LM Aero asserted that the intent of the SSID “Special Condition” inspections is to provide an opportunity to perform an enhanced inspection of the applicable PSE during another unscheduled maintenance action—typically, the removal of a component or structural part. LM Aero recommended against mandatory scheduled intervals for these inspections, because of the potential for associated damage from repetitive part removal and replacement. LM Aero agreed that the inspections should be done in accordance with paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), if none of the “Special Condition” inspections are part of an operator's maintenance program. Lynden concurred with this comment.

We agree that the subject inspections should be done only when the part is removed for scheduled maintenance—not at regular intervals. The inspection area is a PSE but not a problem area. The inspection requires removing parts, and continually removing the part for inspection will result in excessive damage to the airplane structure compromising the use and value of the inspection. The current schedule is adequate to maintain safety. Because more damage will be done by removing the parts to do the inspection, we have changed this final rule to refer to the exceptions noted in paragraph (j) of this AD to agree with the provisions of the SSID.

LM Aero also questioned the repetitive inspection interval specified in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) for the “Special Condition” inspection of the aft engine mount beam (SP-190). LM Aero stated that the proposed 24-month interval would result in a significant burden on the operator to remove the aft engine mount to do the inspection. This inspection is intended to provide an enhanced procedure for detecting cracking of the aft mount beam normally hidden by the lord mount. The aft lord mount does not have a scheduled removal time, and replacement is based on the condition found (cracks in the rubber mounts). The inspections associated with SP-189 performed at 24-month intervals will detect cracking in the aft mount beam that extends beyond the lord mount. Lynden concurred with this comment.

We agree, for the reasons provided by the LM Aero. The proposed compliance time could also result in excessive hole over-sizing, requiring replacement of the steel beam. We have revised paragraph (n) of this final rule to require the repetitive inspection interval as specified in the SSID when the aft lord mount is replaced. Paragraph (n) in this final rule agrees with the revision in the SSID for the inspection requirements for PSE 71-10-03.

Lynden stated that Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) of the SSID presents two steps: (1) Incorporating the methodology for assessing/analyzing each PSE listed in Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) that validates the assigned DTA value; and (2) implementing inspection intervals established for each PSE based on the DTA and the value assigned. During the actual accomplishment of the PSE inspections, findings are evaluated to determinewhether the results are within the anticipated safety limits, i.e., within assigned values. When implemented, this requirement would provide a methodology to allow adjustments to the inspection intervals based on findings, changes in design, and implemented repairs and alterations.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to allow for adjustments to the inspection intervals based on the suggested criteria. We disagree. Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) of the SSID clearly describes the DTA and methodology, and Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID clearly specifies the required inspection intervals for each PSE. As previously stated we have evaluated the document and supporting data, and have established that the methodology presented in the SSID will ensure that the identified unsafe condition will be corrected. All the information that the operator needs to incorporate into the maintenance inspection program is the inspection procedures and the inspection intervals, in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID. The discrepancy reporting requirements specified in Section 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting) of the SSID must also be included. The DTA Methodology in Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) of the SSID provides the basic information needed to develop the inspection intervals provided in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID. The inspection intervals are already provided, so operators do not need the detailed analysis. By incorporating inspection intervals provided in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID, the operator is already in compliance with Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) because the intervals were based on Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology). This AD does not allow adjustments to the inspection intervals without FAA approval. Operators may request AMOCs for this purpose in accordance with procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this AD.

Lynden requested that we revise the proposed compliance time to a specific date, such as December 2010—for the pending DTA requirements in section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a).

We partially agree. December 20, 2010, is the date by which operators must incorporate an inspection program into their maintenance program to address the baseline structure inspections required by the Aging Aircraft Safety Rule (14 CFR 121.1109, “Supplemental Inspections”). Operators may either use the SSID or incorporate their own FAA-approved inspection program for baseline structure. Lockheed has agreed, once the AD is issued, to provide operators that have incorporated certain inspections into their maintenance program with a revision of Lockheed Service Manual SMP-515-C that includes the SSID requirements. Therefore, most if not all operators have complied with this AD by that date, with no additional work required of operators. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden questioned whether operators will be able to comply with the proposed requirements in the proper timeframe, adding that several proposed inspection intervals would be problematic. Lynden emphasized that the CAMP's intervals have ensured the structural integrity of its fleet for 97,000 flight hours of civil operation in the most difficult civil operating conditions envisioned by the type design. Lynden observed that the proposed inspection intervals are slightly shorter than those established by Lynden's CAMP, and suggests that changing these intervals could introduce the potential for maintenance error, with possible harmful results. Lynden stated that the proposed AD must correspond with its CAMP to ensure compliance and structural integrity without unnecessary duplication and cost.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the proposed inspection intervals to match those in its CAMP. We disagree. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the practical aspect of accomplishing the inspections within intervals of time that correspond to typical scheduled maintenance for affected operators. But since the various operators have different maintenance schedules, we could not provide optimal schedules for each operator in the AD. As previously explained, operators who perform the CAMP as required should already be in compliance with the SSID, except for the differences noted. Operators with FAA-approved revisions to their CAMP to meet maintenance schedules may request an AMOC to the AD, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, based on the existing CAMP to adjust the maintenance schedule, provided no interval exceeds the DTA-established inspection intervals mandated by the AD and presented in the SSID. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden was concerned that the compliance times in the SSID and the AD do not contain the exact same language. Determining exact compliance is essential to an operator's efficient and effective management of ADs. Lynden requested additional time to ensure that its current CAMP establishes compliance with the AD, which will in turn comply with section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109). Lynden has already worked with its Principal Aviation Safety Inspector (PASI) to ensure that its program can comply with the requirements of section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109) and the December 2010 deadline. Lynden has followed FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-93, “Damage Tolerance Inspections for Repairs and Alterations,” dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/f73fd2a31b353a71862573b000521928/$FILE/AC%20120-93.pdf), regarding the actual accomplishment and implementation of the section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) program. The operator's PASI has agreed to the carrier's phased approach and will ensure the following:

1. The maintenance program for the airplane includes FAA-approved damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for airplane structure susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. These inspections and procedures account for the effects of adverse repairs, alterations, and modifications on fatigue cracking of airplane structure.

2. The Atlanta ACO has approved the damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures, including any revisions. Lynden has already included the SSID's damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in its CAMP.

We agree with the request to revise the compliance time in this AD. As stated previously, we have changed the compliance time of paragraph (g) of this final rule to 12 months after the effective date of the AD for operators to incorporate the requirements of theSSID into their maintenance program. Lynden has a CAMP, and the latest guidance and documents from the DAH should already be incorporated into the operator's CAMP. So operators performing their CAMP as required already have the necessary information to perform these inspections. The operator should already be in compliance with the SSID so it should not be necessary to revise the compliance time. If the operator has made changes to the CAMP to meet its maintenance schedules that were previously approved by the FAA, the subject operator may request an AMOC based on the existing CAMP; if the AMOC is approved by the FAA, the operator will not have to change the CAMP, and they would already be in compliance with this AD, except for the minor changes.

Lynden questioned how operators will know how to comply with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), since the SSID provides a methodology for accomplishing the DTA but does not assign the initial values (compliance times).

We disagree that the SSID does not assign the initial values. The initial and repetitive inspections are provided in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID, along with a reference to the inspection procedure for each PSE. Paragraph (g) of this AD requires operators to incorporate the information in the SSID (inspection intervals and procedures) into their maintenance inspection programs within 12 months. Paragraph (i) of this AD specifies the compliance time for accomplishing the initial inspections. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

LM Aero noted that the estimated cost of implementing the AD applies to operators that do not currently follow the Model 382 SMP-515-C inspection program. To LM Aero's knowledge, all U.S. operators currently use this program (although it is not yet mandated by the FAA), and the latest revision includes the intent of the SSID. Revising the maintenance program therefore should be considered a one-time effort of 600 hours for the entire fleet (not per airplane). Lynden concurred with this comment.

We agree. The proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) inadvertently stated that revising the maintenance program would take 600 work hours per airplane. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule accordingly.

Lynden stated that the estimated costs specified in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) do not include the additional recordkeeping requirements necessary to comply with the AD. Lynden owns and operates six of the affected airplanes, all under part 121 and all under a program developed to comply with section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a). Lynden noted that operators must report structural issues under the SDR rules as well as reporting findings to the TC holder in accordance with the AD. This duplicative action must take place at the time of the inspections and repairs so that the airplane can be approved to return to service and accomplishment with the AD requirements can be recorded.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the cost estimate in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to include additional time for recordkeeping. We disagree. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the basic required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required for recordkeeping or other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate.

Further, the SSID requirements are already part of the maintenance program, so if the inspections have been done as specified in the SSID, no additional work is required. Most of the information required by the SSID will be identical to the SDRs except for some minor changes. To simplify the reporting requirements, operators may use one report for both the SSID inspections and the SDRs. For these reasons we find that there will be very little additional cost for recordkeeping once the maintenance program is revised to incorporate the SSID requirements. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

The Cost of Compliance section in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) explained the following:

Lynden alleged that this is not true for its current program, and that if the AD is issued as proposed, Lynden would be required to duplicate inspections to comply with its program and the AD.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the cost estimates in this AD. We disagree. Each operator's inspection schedule will be different, and we cannot account for the individual costs incurred by each operator. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden contended that the cost estimates specified in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) would be more accurate if we reconcile the differences between the AD and the SSID. Lynden asserted that the estimated costs are based on the assumption that the proposed inspection intervals were in line with the inspection intervals already used by air carriers. Lynden stated that these intervals do not align and would add scheduling complexities and associated costs for the operators. Lynden requested that we revise the proposed AD based on Lynden's estimated costs, since Lynden operates the most affected airplanes.

We disagree with the request to revise the cost estimate. Where safety considerations allow, we try to set compliance times that generally coincide with operators' maintenance schedules. But since schedules vary substantially, we cannot accommodate each operator's optimal scheduling ineach AD. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to attribute to the AD the costs associated with the type of special scheduling that might otherwise be required. Each AD does allow individual operators to request approval to adjust the compliance time via an alternative method of compliance, based on data showing that the adjustment will not adversely affect safety. In any event, any compliance time adjustments would have little effect on costs since most of the inspections already align with each operator's maintenance program. We have not changed the AD regarding this issue.

Lynden objected to the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) incorporating the SSID “by reference” because the SSID is not precisely written. Lynden alleged that other supplemental structural inspection documents adopted through ADs clearly delineate the methodology used to develop the requirements for determining the structural elements and the inspection intervals. Lynden stated that those documents also clearly lay out the damage tolerance values for each element. Lynden added that Section 5 (DTA Methodology) is not like the sections of other SSIDs referenced in other ADs. Those SSIDs clearly establish the DTA methodology and the DTA value assigned to each SSI. Lynden added that such clarity is necessary for appropriate changes to the maintenance program and for the assignment and continued evaluation of the inspection intervals implemented under that program.

Lynden made no specific request to change the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), but we provide the following explanation to address Lynden's concerns.

We disagree with the assertion that the SSID is not precisely written. As explained previously, an operator's CAMP is based on the latest guidance and documents from the DAH, as provided in the Lockheed Martin Model L382 SMP 515-C-MASTER Report, dated November 2010.

We also disagree that the SSID does not clearly delineate the methodology used to develop the requirements for determining the PSEs and the inspection intervals. Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) of the SSID provides enough information for operators to determine how the PSEs were developed. Sections 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) and 8.0 (Inspection Zone Description) also provide enough information to identify each PSE and its location on the aircraft by zones. Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) clearly explains the DTA methodology, and Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) clearly states the required inspection intervals (damage tolerance values) for each of the PSEs. Further, operators have already incorporated into the CAMP the inspection procedures required to perform the SSID inspections on SP cards (special inspection cards) and ST cards (structural inspections cards). The operators have not advised of any concerns about these inspections, and therefore must be following the procedures to perform the inspections without difficulty. The inspection procedure/card number to be used for each inspection is clearly identified in the first column of the table in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID. Also, the required inspection intervals (assumed to be the damage tolerance values referenced in the comments) are clearly defined in the fourth and fifth columns of the table in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID. Operators are required to set up a tracking system for each inspection, and to maintain that system at all times. Operators and the FAA can track the status of the inspections using inspection numbers assigned by the operator to each inspection requirement, or operators can track the inspections by the procedure/card number defined by the SSID document or any other procedure approved by the FAA.

We have reviewed and approved the DTA and inspection intervals as approved in the SSID. This information is the DAH's proprietary data, and we cannot release it to the operators. Further, operators do not need this information to accomplish the SSID requirements.

Each manufacturer's SSID is different, and each DAH has a different approach regarding methods for developing the data, information they need to provide to accomplish the required inspections, and reporting procedures. The different overseeing ACOs also have authority to approve whatever data they deem necessary to meet the requirements of the AD, provided the data meet the intent of the FAA regulations, policies, and guidance materials. We find that the SSID meets those requirements.

We have not changed this final rule regarding these issues.

Lynden was concerned about differences noted between the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) and the SSID, and made several assertions based on these alleged differences.

1. The SSID's stated purpose is to capture a point in time to help civil operators establish compliance with section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)).

We partially agree with Lynden's position. The SSID inspections are necessary for the continued safe operation of the affected airplanes, and therefore must be mandated by an AD. However, the SSID can also be used to show compliance for the baseline inspections for the Aging Airplanes Safety Rule (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)). That rule requires operators to incorporate FAA-approved damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures into the maintenance program for airplane structure susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure on airplanes meeting the following criteria:

• Transport category airplanes.

• Airplanes type certificated after January 1, 1958.

• Turbine power airplanes.

• Airplanes having a maximum type-certificated passenger seating capacity of 30 or more, or a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more.

The SSID meets the requirements for the affected airplanes.

2. Section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109) is tied to the operator's CAMP, which can be continually adjusted, with FAA approval, to accommodate improvements in design, production, maintenance, and operations. Lynden added that an AD is “carved in stone” and may be changed only through an AMOC or a superseding AD, which require expenditures of time and money by the operator, the DAH, and the FAA.

We partially agree with Lynden. Because the subject regulation is tied to each operator's CAMP, which may be adjusted to accommodate such improvements, we required the DAH to develop a separate document—the SSID—and have mandated its incorporation by this AD, so that the inspection requirements in the SSID cannot be revised by the operator without approval by the Atlanta ACO. The inspection program may be incorporated into operators'maintenance programs in one of two ways: (1) By developing a separate maintenance inspection document that stands alone and requires that only those instructions in the SSID be accomplished in accordance with the AD, or (2) by incorporating the SSID inspections into the existing maintenance program. Either method is approved for the SSID AD, because they are both considered part of an operator's maintenance program. As Lynden noted, those inspections can then be changed only by an AMOC approved by the FAA, or by a revision to the SSID followed by a new or superseding AD that mandates the new requirements.

3. The SSID is adequate for its stated purpose, but it does not provide the certainty and objectivity required to be incorporated into a rule.

We disagree that the SSID lacks certainty and objectivity. As previously explained, the inspection intervals and procedures are clearly identified in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID, and the PSEs are identified in Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements). And, if the operator has been performing the CAMP as required, adequate information is available to perform the required inspections, and the operator should already be in compliance with the SSID except for the noted changes.

No change is necessary in this final rule to address these assertions.

Lynden asserted that the SSID is inadequate, and will need considerable revision and additions to satisfy the intent and purpose of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 91-56, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,” dated May 6, 1981 (now 91-56B, dated March 7, 2008). Lynden was concerned that it will need an AMOC immediately to establish compliance with the intent of the AD. Further, the AD changes the SSID in significant portions. Lynden stated that, to ensure proper compliance, the SSID must align properly with the proposed requirements of paragraphs (k) through (m) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)).

Lynden also requested that we ensure that Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID and paragraphs (h) through (m) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) match exactly. Reconciling these differences would (1) ensure that any changes to the SSID can be quickly reconciled with the final rule and any unique air carrier requirements; (2) ensure that an appropriate AMOC can be approved by the FAA without unnecessary explanation or confusion; (3) allow the original equipment manufacturer itself to apply for an AMOC to change the DTA and/or assigned values based on design changes; and (4) enhance compliance.

We agree with the request and made the requested revisions (in paragraphs (j) through (n) in this final rule) to ensure that the requirements of the AD align with the SSID accordingly. We agree that the SSID must align with the AD, but the AD is the prevailing source and we have determined these intervals to be appropriate.

Lynden requested that we account for conflicts and confusing information in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID:

Lynden asserted that there is no definition of the term “routine,” and no requirement for deviations if the operator has obtained an OUE. Lynden questioned whether an operator with an FAA-approved program developed to comply with section 121.370a of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.370a) would need an AMOC to comply with the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)). Lynden further questioned whether an operator would have an automatic AMOC if it completed an OUE and obtained FAA-approval of the updated inspection program through its local Flight Standard District Office (FSDO). Lynden was concerned about potential conflicts and confusion between the SSID and the proposed AD, and notes a specific example of confusing information, where Section 6.3 of the SSID includes the caveat of “later than +10% of the specified interval.” Lynden questioned whether this indicates that the proposed AD would allow the addition of 10% to all intervals without additional approval.

We agree to provide clarification. In this AD, “routine” refers to typical cargo transport operational usage with an average payload of 30,000 pounds, rather than the defined typical usage of 20,000 pounds; in that case the inspection intervals should be reduced by a factor of 2.

AMOCs are never automatically approved. The operator must substantiate, and we must approve, any AMOC for a different compliance method or compliance time not specifically identified in the AD. The OUE and the +10% extension have not been evaluated or approved by the FAA, so these may not be approved as AMOCs to this AD without further substantiation that these methods provide an equivalent level of safety. Further, the OUE will vary from operator to operator, so we must review each AMOC on a case-by-case basis in lieu of including this information in this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden noted certain errors and omissions throughout the SSID, including references to certain documents.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to explain and correct the noted errors in the SSID. We disagree with the request, and we disagree that the SSID contains errors that would affect compliance with the requirements of this AD. In the SSID, the PSEs are clearly identified in Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements), and the locations and inspection requirements are clearly identified in Sections 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) and 8.0 (Inspection Zone Description), and these cannot be changed without FAA approval. All the information necessary to accomplish the AD is in Sections 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements), 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements), 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting), and 8.0 (Inspection Zone Description) of the SSID, a stand-alone document. Lynden notes that Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) omits Chapter 52, the PSEs, which are required to comply with Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements), but there are no SSID PSEs for the doors in Chapter 52. The two PSEs identified in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) in Chapter 52 are actually located on the fuselage and not on the doors, so thosePSEs are listed under Chapter 53 in Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements). Those PSEs are referenced in Chapter 52 in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements), because they are part of the door surround structure. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden suggested that the SSID was based on a menagerie of methodologies to determine the inspection intervals, and that the proposed changes to these intervals are based on an unclear understanding of the original analysis. Neither the intervals proposed by the SSID nor the changes proposed in paragraphs (i) through (m) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) can be tracked to a clear, concise, objective DTA evaluation—as required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. The proposed AD stated that compliance with the AD including the SSID establishes compliance with section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109). Lynden requested that we restate this in the final rule.

We partially agree with Lynden. We agree to restate that compliance with the AD establishes compliance with section 121.1109(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1)). We have revised this final rule accordingly by adding this information in new Note 3 to paragraphs (g) through (p) of this AD. But we disagree that changes to the inspection interval are based on an unclear understanding of the original analysis. We have previously described the different bases for the SSID, and have explained that all the inspection intervals were originally established using a DTA. We might consider different intervals through requests for AMOCs if the service history data, fatigue test results, or risk analysis does not correlate well with the DTA, or if service history shows no discrepancies in the PSE inspection area following inspections as directed by the SSID. And we might consider different intervals to a calendar schedule if discrepancies exist within a given time period regardless of the aircraft usage, or to fit the operator's maintenance program schedule (although that interval cannot exceed the interval established by a DTA). Changes in inspection intervals must be substantiated by fatigue testing and extensive service history. We might consider a different DTA-based inspection, based on existing data. Or we might consider a different DTA-based inspection interval if a risk analysis shows an extremely low probability of fatigue damage occurring.

Lynden was concerned that Table 2.1 on page 2-3 of the SSID might conflict with the various requirements of the individual ADs identified in the SSID and the proposed inspection intervals of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) or the requirements of section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109). Lynden stated that the individual ADs must be reconciled appropriately, superseded as appropriate, to ensure continued compliance.

We disagree that it is necessary to revise this final rule. This AD adds inspections that supplement but do not conflict with other ADs. The SSID inspections will identify safety issues related to the PSEs. When a SSID inspection has a certain number of positive findings on a PSE, then that part of the PSEs will be removed from the SSID and addressed in an individual service bulletin and associated AD. The rest of the PSEs will remain in the SSID and will be subject to the SSID inspections only. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden stated that the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) of the SSID clearly indicates that the inspection intervals derived from the analysis for the United States Air Force have already been incorporated into operator-specific “SMP-515-C-X Hercules Series Inspection Programs.” Lynden requested that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to reconcile the PSEs identified in Section V of the customer-specific SMP-515-C-X inspection programs that have been “superseded” by the PSEs identified in the SSID. In further support of its request, Lynden has provided the FAA with its analysis of the SSID against its FAA-approved program (SMP-515-C-113). The analysis revealed few, but significant, differences.

We agree that the information in the SSID is based on military usage, which was used to define the baseline inspection requirements. As explained previously, analysis and in-service cracking data have shown that the crack growth rate severity of typical commercial usage is very similar to the baseline military usage. Our evaluation of commercial usage is therefore based on objective criteria and information submitted by the operators. As stated previously, we accept the DAH's inspection intervals presented in the SSID as “DTA values,” and have revised this final rule to change “DTA values” to “inspection intervals” to correspond to the SSID.

But we disagree that the differences are significant. The DAH carefully reviewed and evaluated the operator's maintenance program, and considered the civilian usage of the affected airplanes. Our intent is to reduce the workload of the DAH, operators, and the FAA, and still accomplish the intent of the AD. The SSID meets the requirements for the affected airplanes. Except for some minor changes made by the DAH and approved by the FAA, any operator with a CAMP is already in compliance with the SSID, except for the minor changes. The SSID requirements are already a part of the operators' maintenance programs. If the operator has made changes to the CAMP to meet its maintenance schedules that were previously approved by the FAA, the subject operator may request an AMOC to the SSID based on the existing CAMP. If this is approved by the FAA, the operator will not have to change the CAMP, and would already be in compliance with this AD except for the minor changes in the SSID.

Lynden suggested that we revise the proposed compliance times in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), in light of two related existing ADs, to avoid duplicative or contradictory results.

AD 92-10-14, Amendment 39-8249 (57 FR 21727, April 22, 1992), affects certain Lockheed Model 382 airplanes and addresses fatigue cracking. That AD requires inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours, in accordance with SP-126 and SP-224. Lynden reported being in compliance with that AD at its scheduled C check interval of 2,800 flight hours. The initial compliance times in the SSID are 1,800 flight hours for SP-126 and 3,600 flight hours for SP-224.

AD 75-17-04, Amendment 39-2300 (40 FR 32827, August 5, 1975), as revised by Amendment 39-3185 (43 FR 16151, April 17, 1978), affects certain Lockheed Model 382 series airplanes and addresses cracking on main frames. That AD requires inspections at intervals not to exceed the “C check” (which corresponds to 2,800 flight hours for Lynden), in accordance with SP-95, which is required at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight hours in accordance with the SSID. Lynden reported being in compliance with AD 75-17-04 at 1,400-flight-hour intervals, at B-2 and C checks.

We disagree that it is necessary to change the compliance times in this AD. The inspection requirements of AD 92-10-14, Amendment 39-8249 (57 FR 21727, May 22, 1992); and AD 75-17-04, Amendment 39-3185 (43 FR 16151, April 17, 1978); as well as the other ADs identified in the SSID, do not conflict with this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden found no objective evidence that the inspections are based on clear objective damage tolerance evaluations. Lynden noted that the SSID was drawn from existing programs and the inspection areas were validated by “full scale fatigue test and service corrosion and cracking data.” Lynden added that the DAH understands that the maintenance program must be based on FAA-approved DT-based structural inspection procedures, but the fourth paragraph of Section 2.0 (Introduction) of the SSID reveals that the information is based only in part on damage tolerance assessments.

We infer that Lynden was requesting clarification of the basis for the inspection procedures. The information in the SSID comes from several sources. On affected airplanes, the DAH performed several full-scale tests and has developed a large data bank of service history (including SDRs) to identify problem areas and PSEs. A DTA was performed to establish the inspection intervals after many of the PSEs had already been identified. Initially, the fatigue test and service history data were used only to identify the problem area PSEs to receive DTA evaluation, and to validate the DTA data. Every PSE received a DTA. As part of the assessment of each PSE, the DAH found that in some instances the DTA did not correlate well with the fatigue test and service life data. In those instances, the fatigue test and service life data were used to establish the inspection intervals that are presented in the SSID. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

According to Sections 1.0 (Purpose) and 2.0 (Introduction) of the SSID, data used by the DAH were based on information from military usage. Lynden concluded that the FAA's evaluation of commercial usage does not appear to be based on objective criteria or on information submitted to the SDR database sufficient to determine whether the “crack growth rate severity of typical commercial usage is similar to the baseline military usage, particularly in wing lower surface structure.” Lynden found nothing in the AD docket indicating whether the DAH or the FAA evaluated the findings of commercial operators.

We agree that the SSID is based in part on military usage, which was used to define the baseline inspection requirements. Recent analysis of the usage data has shown that typical commercial operation of the affected airplanes is at higher payloads than that of military operations with significantly less time in training. Analysis and in-service cracking data have also shown that the crack growth rate severity of typical commercial usage is very similar to the baseline military usage. Our evaluation of commercial usage is therefore based on objective criteria and information submitted by operators. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue. The DAH has advised that the recommended inspection intervals might be extended if operators complete an OUE and request AMOC approval.

Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) would require incorporation of a revision into the maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required damage-tolerance rating for each PSE listed in the SSID. Lynden noted however that the SSID does not provide damage-tolerance ratings (as published in Boeing SSIDs), and provides only inspection intervals for SPs that are already part of the CAMP. And the required reports have not been incorporated into the findings or reassessment by the TC holder or FAA.

We agree to provide clarification. Each manufacturer's SSID is different. And each DAH has a different approach regarding collecting the data, implementing the required inspection, and reporting the results. Boeing used a damage tolerance rating procedure for its SSID program; Lockheed chose a different method. We accept both methods. The different oversight ACOs also have authority to approve whatever data they deem necessary to meet the requirements of the AD, as long as the data meet the intent of the FAA regulations, policies, and guidance materials. We have determined that the SSID meets those requirements. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden stated that Section 4.0 (Principal Structural Elements) of the SSID seems to be the list of PSEs required by the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), yet there is no specific reference to that section, and that section does not contain the required DTA values.

We agree to provide clarification. Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) of the SSID simply links the PSE number with a description of the PSE. Section 4.0 (Principle Structural Elements) identifies and defines the individual PSEs by zones of the airplane. The required DTA values or inspection intervals are presented in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) of the SSID. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden stated that the actions proposed in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) would increase recordkeeping complexity without equally enhancing safety. Since the SP cards listed in the SSID are already a mandatory part of the CAMP, Lynden requested that we issue an AD that requires accomplishment of the specific structural service bulletins already issued by the TC holder and incorporated into Lynden's inspection program, instead of the SSID inspections. Lynden suggested this as a better, less complex method of ensuring continued structural integrity.

We disagree with the request. Any operator with a CAMP is already in compliance with the SSID, except for the minor changes noted previously. Furthermore, mandating accomplishment of those service bulletins would necessitate issuing a supplemental NPRM to provide the opportunity for the public to comment on the merits of this change, and would further delay issuance of this AD,without increasing safety. Operators doing the inspection program are required to set up a tracking system for each inspection and maintain that system at all times, so very little additional work for recordkeeping should be required. The operator and the FAA can track the status of the inspections by inspection numbers assigned to each inspection requirement by the operator, or by the procedure and card number defined by the SSID, or by any other procedure approved by the FAA. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden asserted that the proposed reporting requirement of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) (as specified in Section 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting) of the SSID) is unnecessary and burdensome, because operators must also file SDRs for all structural defects. Lynden stated that submitting the SDRs to the TC holder would comply with the proposed reporting requirements of the proposed AD, since the TC holder could simply query the FAA's SDR database and obtain the same information. To eliminate the need to develop two different reporting systems to comply with both reporting requirements, Lynden requested that we revise the proposed AD to either (1) specify that operators do not need to report to the TC holder if the report is made under the SDR requirements, or (2) match the proposed AD language to the specifications of the SDR.

We partially agree. Most of the information required by the SSID will be identical to the SDRs except for some minor changes. The results reported for the SSID inspections may be used for the SDRs (if the reports include all the information required as specified in the SDR reporting procedures), and the SDRs may be used for the SSID inspections. But to simplify the reporting requirements, one report may be used for both the SDR and the AD. We have revised paragraph (g) in this final rule to include this provision.

Lynden requested that we clarify whether cracks found in SSID-specific PSEs fall under the scope of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), including repairing and reporting cracks found in SSID-specific PSEs during a non-SSID inspection.

We agree that clarification is necessary. All cracks found during a SSID inspection are covered by the SSIP reporting procedures. Cracks in a PSE found outside a SSID inspection are not part of the SSID reporting but do fall under the Aging Airplane Safety Rule (70 FR 5518, February 2, 2005) (Docket FAA-1999-5401) reporting so they will still need to be reported. The reporting procedures should be the same. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden stated that, according to Section 1.0 (Purpose) of the SSID, Lockheed Martin will provide operators with a method to comply with section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109), which allows for continual adjustments to (1) account for changes in the product materials, parts, and processes; and (2) issue new or improved repairs and revisions of the structural repair manual and service bulletins. Lynden noted that changing an AD requires additional time and resources of the operator, the DAH, and the FAA.

We infer that Lynden was requesting that we revise the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to allow for unspecified adjustments to the requirements. We disagree. All changes to the SSID must be approved by the Atlanta ACO. We would consider superseding the AD only when significant changes to the SSID affect the airworthiness of the affected airplanes. The only requirements are those specified in the AD—in this case, the specific revision to the SSID. An operator wishing to use any changes in a future revision to the SSID (not mandated by the AD) must request AMOC approval in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden alleged that the “initial flaw criteria” specified in Section 5.2 of the SSID are based on assumptions unknown to Lynden. The SSID states that the initial flaw size and flaw shape assumptions as well as the structural flaw configuration used in the DTA of crack growth are based on the assumptions determined in “Reference 2,” as specified in that paragraph. Because “Reference 2” is reserved and therefore unidentified, Lynden asserted that it could not review or confirm the methodology. Lynden requested access to all information used to establish compliance with the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) to make substantive comment to the docket.

We disagree that access to “Reference 2” is necessary. We have reviewed “Reference 2” and approved the “initial flaw criteria.” The information in “Reference 2” is the DAH's proprietary data, and the FAA cannot release this information to operators. We have determined that operators do not need this information to accomplish the SSID requirements. We accept the DAH's initial flaw size and flaw shape assumptions as well as the structural flow configuration used in the DTA of crack growth presented in “Reference 2.” We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden interpreted Section 1.0 (Purpose) of the SSID as suggesting that the DAH anticipated an AD but did not expect it to be based on its ever-changing SSID document. Lynden added that the DAH did not understand that, after the AD is issued, the SSID requirements cannot be changed unless the operator obtains an AMOC or the FAA supersedes the AD. Lynden also asserted that the first paragraph of Section 2.0 (Introduction) of the SSID clearly establishes that the DAH did not understand or appreciate how its SSID document would be used as the basis for an AD.

We disagree with Lynden's assertions. The DAH understands how its SSID will be used as the basis for the AD. The DAH also understands that the FAA must either supersede the AD to incorporate any significant changes to the SSID, or approve AMOCs to make any changes to SSID procedures or compliance times that are not specifically required by the AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

The proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) proposed implementing the requirements of Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology) and Section 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting) of the SSID, but LM Aero suggested that the most important requirements are in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements). Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) contains the references for the required inspectionprocedures as well as the compliance times for the initial and repetitive inspections. LM Aero stated that implementing the Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements) requirements will meet the DTA methodology requirements contained in Section 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology). LM Aero agreed with the proposed requirement to comply with Section 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting). Lynden concurred with this comment.

We agree with LM Aero's position. We have revised paragraph (g) in this final rule to include Sections 5.0 (Damage Tolerance Analysis Methodology), 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements), and 7.0 (Discrepancy Reporting) of the SSID.

Lynden noted that the SSID, on page 6-12 in Section 6.0 (Structural Inspection Requirements), requires accomplishment of a certain inspection initially by 12,000 total flight hours, with recurring inspections due at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight hours thereafter. Lynden requested that the SSID or the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) be revised to state that accomplishment of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, eliminates the need for this recurring inspection requirement.

We disagree with the request to allow accomplishment of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, as terminating action for the specified inspection requirement. Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, was never approved by the Atlanta ACO as terminating action. But replacing the bushing and repairing existing damage per Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, will allow operators to zero out the time for the inspection. Operators may request an AMOC for relief from this requirement in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, provided data are provided that show that accomplishment of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, would provide an acceptable level of safety allowing for this terminating action. Since not all operators have accomplished the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-71-24, dated January 21, 2010, the inspections must remain in the SSID. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Lynden interpreted the Regulatory Evaluation for this action as stating that the AD would have no impact on intrastate aviation in the state of Alaska. Lynden reported that it moves over 82 million pounds of cargo per year in Alaska, so the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) would definitely have an impact on those operations.

We agree to provide clarification. The Regulatory Evaluation states that the AD “could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska,” but adds that it is not “appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska.” This AD applies only to airplanes when operated outside the territorial boundaries of Alaska. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Because of the nature of the unsafe condition, we cannot justify a regulatory distinction between aviation only in Alaska and other aviation.

Lynden was concerned about the pending rulemaking related to WFD to propose certain changes to the requirements for evaluating structure, assigning inspections, and doing other maintenance or alteration tasks.

Lynden made no specific request. The SSIP does not account for the effects of WFD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

We have revised this final rule to identify the legal name of the manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected airplane models.

We have added new paragraph (e) in this final rule to provide ATA subject code 51: Standard practices/structures. This code is added to make this final rule parallel with other new AD actions. We have re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to remove the phrase “FAA-approved” from “FAA-approved maintenance inspection program,” because we do not approve operators' maintenance programs.

We have removed the “Service Information” paragraph from this final rule. (That paragraph was identified as paragraph (f) in the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)).) Instead, we have provided the full document citations throughout this final rule.

Since we issued the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)), we have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in the specified labor rate.

We have re-identified Note 3 of the proposed AD (72 FR 64005, November 14, 2007; corrected December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67998)) as Note 1 of this final rule, and relocated that note to follow paragraph (g) of this AD. We have reidentified subsequent notes accordingly.

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

There are about 91 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for the 14 U.S. airplanes to comply with this AD.

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 August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54141), and proposed to require adding diodes to the fuel cross-feed wiring, and revising the airplane flight manual to include procedures to use when the left or right generator is selected OFF.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received from Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna), the manufacturer, on the NPRM (76 FR 54141, August 31, 2011), and the FAA's response to each comment.

Cessna commented that the NPRM (76 FR 54141, August 31, 2011) has incorrect references to certain AFM TCs, does not refer to certain applicable AFM TCs, and incorrectly addresses the procedure change in the recently FAA-approved Revision 10, dated June 30, 2011, of the Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM. We infer that Cessna requested that we correct references to the AFM revisions and TCs in paragraph (h) of the NPRM.

Cessna also commented that the text for AFM revision 68FM-10, dated June 30, 2011, of the Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, does not include the instruction to pull the fuel pump circuit breakers, which was part of the TC, and is not necessary once the modification specified in Cessna Service Bulletin 680-24-11, dated December 16, 2010, is done.

Cessna further commented that the wording of the NPRM (76 FR 54141, August 31, 2011) is incorrect in its reference to Cessna TC TC-R09-13, dated October 15, 2010, to the Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010, and that the TC is applicable until Revision 10, dated June 30, 2011, of the Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, is incorporated into the AFM. Further, the commenter stated that the remaining TCs for Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010, of the Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM are to be removed when Revision 10 is incorporated, and there are 3 new TCs for Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 10, dated June 30, 2011, that are the same as the previous TCs for Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010.

We agree with Cessna's requests for the reasons given. We have changed paragraph (h) of this AD to include the updated AFM revisions and current TCs. However, some operators still use Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010, and therefore the TCs referenced in Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010, still apply for some affected airplanes. Therefore,paragraph (h) of this AD clarifies the changes to the AFM as they apply to airplanes using Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010, and to airplanes using Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 10, dated June 30, 2011. These changes will not result in an additional burden to the operator.

We have also reviewed Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-24-11, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011. This service bulletin includes procedures to address both Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 9, dated May 24, 2010; and Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign AFM, Revision 10, dated June 30, 2011; and their corresponding AFM actions. We have also changed paragraph (g) of this AD to reference Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-24-11, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011. We also added paragraph (i) to the AD to give credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of the AD using Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-24-11, dated December 16, 2010, and re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 54141, August 31, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 54141, August 31, 2011).

We estimate that this AD affects 198 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 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 supersede AD 2007-15-10, Amendment 39-15139 (72 FR 41438, July 30, 2007; as corrected by 72 FR 53923, September 21, 2007). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19278). That NPRM proposed to continue to require certain requirements of AD 2007-15-10, and proposed to require installing dual pane No. 2 and No. 3 windows. That NPRM also proposed to prohibit installed dual structural glass pane windows from being replaced with single structural glass pane windows and to add a definition of “non-clear damage,” which the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, use as criteria for window replacement. Additionally, that NPRM also proposed removing airplanes having line numbers 1418 and on from the applicability.

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

British Airways Engineering (British Airways) stated that it supports the intent of the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) to replace glass number 2 and 3 windows with dual structural ply windows.

An anonymous commenter requested that we change the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) to add a system in the airplane to sound an alarm in the air traffic control tower when the tower fails to respond. The change is requested due to a concern of sleeping air traffic controllers.

We disagree with the request. The suggested change would alter the actions currently required by this AD, so additional rulemaking would be required. We find that delaying this action would be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

United Airlines (United) requested we add a statement to the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) indicating that not all acrylic windows are affected by this NPRM, or the six-year threshold for replacing the windows does not apply if an all-acrylic window is installed. Additionally, United requested clarification as to whether an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is required if an installed new window specified by the NPRM is replaced by an all-acrylic window, or if this is an acceptable procedure. As justification for its request, United stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, which was referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for window replacement, states that if the window is replaced with an all-acrylic window such as part number (P/N) 65B07639-( ) or P/N 65B07640-( ), no more work is necessary.

We partially agree. Certain acrylic windows provide an equivalent level of safety as compared to the dual pane windows. We have changed paragraph (i) of this AD to include Boeing-supplied acrylic windows having P/N 65B07639-( ) and P/N 65B07640-( ) as allowable replacements for the discrepant windows. The FAA has found these windows provide an equivalent level of safety. Any other windows will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and any operator may request approval of an AMOC to use these windows as replacements under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the window would provide an acceptable level of safety.

We disagree with adding a statement to the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) regarding the six-year threshold. This is already addressed in table 1 of Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, dated August 24, 2006, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, which state that no further action is required if acrylic window part numbers are found. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Japan Airlines requested a compliance time exception be added to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) that would allow replacement of single pane windows with dual pane windows within 22,000 flight hours, in addition to the compliance time of within 6 years after the effective date of the AD. We infer that Japan Airlines requests that the compliance time for single pane window replacement be changed to within 22,000 flight hours after new P/N 65B27042-( ) or P/N 65B27046-( ) windows were installed or within 6 years after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. Japan Airlines stated its justification for this change with three reasons. First, during the repetitive inspections, it is almost impossible to detect and correct the moisture ingression into the window, which can contribute to interlayer cracks. Therefore, there are no significant issues that could result in loss of the window. The second reason is the economic impact. The parts price of dual structural glass pane windows is almost twice that of single pane windows. The third reason is that the operational history of the dual pane windows is unknown, and it will be difficult to know how durable the dual pane windows will be compared to the existing single pane windows.

We disagree with changing the compliance time. We concur with the manufacturer's compliance time stated in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010, for dual pane window replacement. Fleet data do not support the existence of difficulties with inspection for moisture ingression. Oncewe issue this AD, any operator may request approval of an AMOC for a change of compliance time under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the compliance time change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We acknowledge the costs of the modification. However, to reduce the reliance on long-term inspections, the modification is necessary to meet an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

British Airways requested that the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) be revised to exempt windows produced by GKN under European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) EASA.A.S02838 from the six-year window replacement action specified in paragraph (i) of the NPRM. British Airways also recommended that no replacement timescale be applied to these EASA-approved parts and to allow replacement by attrition. British Airways justified its request by stating that these GKN windows were developed to replace the discrepant windows that the NPRM proposed to replace. British Airways stated that the GKN windows have the problematic PVB or PU/PVB interlayers removed, and have had zero removals since 2007 due to failing the inspection standards specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-56A2012, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010. British Airways also stated that in over 15 years of experience with GKN windows, the interlayer has not exhibited cracking at the hot and cold temperatures experienced by the windows under service conditions. British Airways identified certain part numbers of the EASA-approved GKN windows and the corresponding Boeing part numbers to provide assistance to the FAA.

We disagree with exempting windows produced by GKN from replacement. British Airways has provided useful data in support of its request. However, we need additional information to exempt these windows from the AD. Once we issue this AD, any operator may request approval of an AMOC for GKN window substitution under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the GKN windows would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

The Boeing Company requested that we clarify certain statements in the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) by changing the wording in paragraph (i) of the NPRM from “Part 3—Window Replacement” to “Work Instructions, Part 3—Window Replacement;” and the wording in paragraph (j) of the NPRM from “Part 2 of the Work Instructions of” to “Work Instructions, Part 2—Window Inspection.”

We agree to revise the references for consistency. We have changed the wording in paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) of this AD.

We have revised certain paragraph headers throughout this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 19278, April 7, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 144 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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 withpromoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron September 1, 2011 (76 FR 54405). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive general visual inspections for broken or missing latch pins of the lower sills of the forward and aft lower lobe cargo doors; repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the latch pins; and corrective actions if necessary.

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

United Parcel Service (UPS) asked that we withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011). UPS stated that there is a lack of justification for issuing the NPRM and added that it is being issued based on a report of a fatigue crack in the 17-4PH material latch pins of the lower cargo door, and the assumption that adjacent latch pins could also be affected. UPS noted that the latching structures of the lower forward and aft cargo door each include eight latch pins; those latch pins are part of a fail-safe design, which should preclude critical failure with the failure of one element. UPS added that the Model 747-400 maintenance planning document includes a detailed inspection of the latch mechanism of the lower cargo door, which includes the latch pins, at 2 year or 2,000 flight cycle intervals, whichever occurs first. UPS noted that the NPRM would require repetitive inspections at 1,600-flight-cycle intervals—a modest increase in frequency over the existing maintenance program—which has already been proven successful at detecting damage to adjacent latch pins. UPS concluded that, based on the extensive fleet history of the latch pins of these lower cargo doors, with no reports of adjacent pin failures, the existing maintenance program inspections of the latch pins are adequate.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011). Although the commenter has not experienced pin failure in service, the manufacturer has found pin fatigue failure on another airplane of the same type design. Therefore, we find we must issue this AD to address the identified unsafe condition on the entire fleet.

The inspections identified in the maintenance planning document are general visual inspections of the entire door. The inspections required by this final rule include detailed inspections of the latch pins themselves. These detailed inspections are the result of the pin fracturing in service. The fractured pin was the number eight latch pin on the lower sill of the aft lower lobe cargo door; investigation by the manufacturer revealed that the crack initiated due to fatigue, and propagated by a combination of fatigue and stress corrosion. If the latch pins on the lower sill are not regularly inspected, and broken latch pins are not replaced, the forward and/or aft cargo door could open during service, resulting in loss of the cargo door, rapid decompression, and significant damage to the airplane. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Boeing asked that the description specified in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011) be changed as follows: “The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detail inspections of latch pins for broken or missing latch pins of the lower sills of the forward and aft lower lobe cargo doors; repetitive detailed inspections of the replaced latch pins for cracked, broken or missing latch pins; and corrective actions if necessary.” Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, dated October 28, 2010, necessitates that a detailed inspection be done on all pins (including previously replaced pins). Boeing added that the detailed inspection is for cracks, and the general visual inspection is to look for the broken and missing pins. Boeing notes that paragraph (g) of the NPRM provides the correct description of the inspections specified in the service bulletin.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern and agree that the language could be clarified somewhat; however, since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Boeing also asked that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011, be included in the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011) for accomplishing certain actions. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, dated October 28, 2010, was referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in the NPRM. Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011, is scheduled for FAA-approval, and includes a latch pin modification and post-modification inspection to address the safety issue.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011, and agree to include it in this final rule as an additional source of service information. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011, reduces an existing compliance time, adds a latch pin modification, and repetitive post-modification inspections. We are including the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011, as optional in order to avoid delaying issuance of the AD. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly. We are currently considering additional rulemaking to require the modification and post-modification inspections.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 54405, September 1, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 228 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 published in theFederal Registeron January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3054). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs).

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to refer to two new revisions of Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, published after we issued the NPRM. Boeing stated that both revisions contain the same structures airworthiness limitations (AWL) data, but were revised for reasons that did not affect the data in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections of that document, which was specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the request to refer to the later service information. We have changed this final rule to refer to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document to this AD. (Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document was specified in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011).) (Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document is identical to the January 2010 revision.) We have changed paragraph (g) in this final rule accordingly.

JAL requested that, for certain airplanes, we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to require inspection procedures and intervals as determined by the damage tolerance rating check form, rather than Section 2, Structural Inspection Program, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. JAL acknowledged that Section 2 of this MPD document usually incorporates recommended inspection procedures and intervals. JAL noted, however, that Section 2 in the latest revision of this MPD document includes data only for Model 777-200 series airplanes. Since no data are provided for the remaining airplanes affected by this AD (Model 777-200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes), JAL requested that those airplanes be excluded from the requirement until the MPD document includes relevant data.

We do not agree that the requested change is necessary, because the information regarding required inspection methods and intervals for these airplanes is provided in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing also advised that the revised inspection requirements in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, affect only Model 777-200, -300, -300ER and -200LR series airplanes. Boeing reported that Section 9 of the Boeing 777F MPD document was previously developed based on the same damage tolerance methods and the same fleet and full-scale test data as those included in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Boeing asserted, therefore, that Model 777F series airplanes should be included in the applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) regardless of changes made to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Including those airplanes will ensure the ability to obtain approval of potential future deviations for repairs or alternative inspections via alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) (as described in paragraph (j) of this AD). Boeing made this comment in the event another party requested that we remove Model 777F series airplanes from the NPRM.

We acknowledge Boeing's concern, and agree that there is no reason to remove Model 777F series airplanes from the applicability specified in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011). We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) (paragraph (c)(2) of this AD) provided guidance on certain revised operator maintenance documents that include new inspections. Boeing requested that we remove the last sentence of that note, which stated that guidance for the determination can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). Boeing stated that this AC, as revised, applies only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight, so this AC no longer applies to Model 777 airplanes.

We agree with Boeing's request and rationale. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which prohibited alternative inspections or intervals except as specifically approved as AMOCs. To reduce the workload associated with requesting and approving AMOCs, the commenters requested that we include other specified procedures and intervals.

Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) 53-00-I01, -I02, and -I03 define the entire fuselage skin as an SSI, and AAL was concerned that the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) provided no guidance or information on how to address new and existing repairs. AAL surmised that any external doubler repair (past or future) would conceal a portion of the skin and would need AMOC approval for the inspection, which would be impossible to perform with the repair in place. AAL contended that any repair approved in accordance with section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)) has been addressed for fatigue and damage tolerance and would provide the level of safety desired by the NPRM.

Boeing requested that we also allow alternative inspections and intervals specified in a later revision to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Since Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document changes frequently and is FAA approved, no subsequent re-approval should be necessary via AMOC. Boeing also requested that we allow alternative inspections and intervals if certain damage tolerance requirements have been met in accordance with section 25.571(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571(b)), or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)), or section 26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)).

We disagree with the requests. Paragraph (h) in this AD requires compliance with the inspections unless AMOC approval is obtained as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Allowing later revisions of service documents in an AD violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of referenced service information as an alternative method of compliance. In response to AAL's concern, operators must request a method of compliance to address new and existing repairs, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of the final rule. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to allow the optional use of BMS materials (sealants) permitted in Boeing Document D-590, the Boeing 777 Airplane Maintenance Manual, or the Boeing 777 Structural Repair Manual—instead of the specific materials specified in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance PlanningData (MPD) Document. The use of alternative materials would allow for ready compliance if the current BMS materials were discontinued or improved.

We disagree with the request. The documents referenced by the commenter specify specific procedures to remove the sealant, rather than specific types of sealant. Further, some existing ADs including those related to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”), Amendment 21-78 and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002), require specific sealants, which may be identified in the BMS specifications, but only certain sealants may be used to comply with SFAR88; operators are limited to the use of sealants approved by other AD actions in areas that overlap with this AD. The application of the sealants and materials in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, is often controlled by other ADs that mandate the use of certain sealants for Subsections D and E (of SFAR88). Operators may request an AMOC to use materials that have been determined to be acceptable for the various ADs applicable to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which provides information about AMOCs for repairs. Boeing requested that we also specify AMOCs for inspection methods, since there may be instances where the operator cannot conduct the inspection method specified in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, identified in the NPRM. Although authority to approve AMOCs for supplemental inspections of baseline structure may not currently exist for the Boeing Delegated Compliance Organization (BDCO), Boeing suggested that including both repairs and inspections would allow for potential future expansion of delegation.

We disagree with the request. The nondiscretionary basis for this type of delegation has not yet been developed. At present, the FAA must approve tasks that involve discretion, and may delegate only nondiscretionary tasks. In any event, any change to delegation authority in the future will not affect the AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

AAL requested clarification of certain procedures. AAL observed the phrase “refer to,” used in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, to specify certain chapters in an AMM. AAL noted that use of this phrase in service bulletins allows operators to use their equivalent procedures. AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to state that equivalent procedures are acceptable where the phrase “refer to” is used in Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.

We disagree with the request. As the commenter noted, the phrase “refer to” is used in both AMMs and Boeing service bulletins. In a service bulletin, use of the phrase “refer to” generally means that a determination was made to permit operators' equivalent procedures where applicable, and use of the phrase “as given in” or “in accordance with” generally means that operators' equivalent procedures are not acceptable. But these definitions do not apply to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, for which operators' equivalent procedures are not specifically allowed. Under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule, however, we will consider requests for approval to use different procedures, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the procedures would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to permit the compliance time thresholds to be reset for new replacement parts. Boeing asserted that Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document does not explicitly state that the inspection threshold for new parts starts when the part is replaced, and that other existing ADs include terminating action that zero-times certain fastener locations. Boeing made this request to allow operators to take credit for the younger life of those parts.

We agree that this change is necessary to accommodate new replacement parts. We have changed the initial compliance time accordingly in paragraph (g) of this AD.

JAL noted that Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document includes a reporting timeframe of 10 days after an inspection finding. JAL reported that these inspections are often accomplished during a heavy maintenance inspection where many inspections are accomplished over many days. Tracking all of the reporting at the time of return to service is easier rather than sending individual events occurring during the maintenance check. JAL therefore requested that the reporting time frames be revised from 10 days after a finding to 10 days after the airplane is returned to service.

We agree with JAL's request and rationale. We have added this reporting provision in paragraph (g) in the final rule. We have also added new paragraph (i) in this final rule to explain the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to consider the extent of the paperwork burden that will accompany any new rule. And we have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Boeing noted that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf) providesguidance for addressing damage tolerance inspection requirements for repairs and alterations to certain removable structural components. Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to add a provision to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, allowing FAA AC 120-93 as a means to establish compliance times for rotable parts where the data are not available.

We disagree. That AC provides guidance and an acceptable means for developing the age of removable parts for the purpose of determining compliance times for repairs and alterations. If the actual age, flight hours, and flight cycles are unknown for a part affected by the AD, we would consider the operator's request for an AMOC. This allows Boeing and operators the option to propose methods in detail that use FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf),for guidance. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Wang Jian requested clarification of the identity of certain PSEs. Attached to this comment was a copy of a page from the Boeing 777F Structural Repair Manual, which identified primary structure for repair classification. From this page, the commenter observed that the main deck floor panels are identified as PSEs on Model 777F series airplanes, but not on other aircraft such as Model 747-400F series airplanes.

Although the commenter's question concerning the PSE differences between the Model 747 and 777 is not related to the inspections required by this AD, the intent of the question may be explained in more detail in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

We have redesignated Note 1 and Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD respectively. These changes have not changed the intent of this AD.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 153 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 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:

Regulatory Information

On August 1, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and Lockheed Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites, Elliott Bay, WA in theFederal Register(76 FR 45738). We received 2 comments on the proposed rule. No one requested a public meeting and a public meeting was not held.

Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the PSR and Lockheed Shipyard sediment caps. It does so by restricting anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the cap in an RNA around the sediment caps. This RNA is similar to RNAs which protect other caps in the area. Enforcement of this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound assets including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar and closed circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may also be assisted by other government agencies in the enforcement of this zone.

The PSR superfund site, which is located on the north shore of West Seattle within Elliott Bay, and northwest of the mouth of the Duwamish river, was created by the EPA to cover the remains of the Wyckoff West Seattle Wood Treating Facility. The wood treating facility, which was in operation between 1909 and 1994, was mostly located on a pile-supported facility extending into Elliott Bay. The area was added to the federal Superfund National Priorities List in May 1994. Later that year the entire wood treatment facility was demolished and approximately 4000 cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and process sludge were removed from the site. Construction of a subsurface physical containment barrier was started in 1996 and completed in 1999. The final sediment cap, completed in 2004, is approximately 58-acres which includes approximately 1500 linear feet of shoreline, and intertidal and subtidal areas to depth of about 300 feet.

The Lockheed Shipyard Sediment Operable Unit consists of contaminated near shore sediments within and adjacent to the Lockheed Shipyard on Harbor Island. Harbor Island is located approximately one mile southwest of the Central Business District of Seattle, in King County, Washington, and lies at the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway on the southern edge of Elliott Bay. The Lockheed Shipyard sediments are located on the west side of Harbor Island and face the West Waterway of the Duwamish Waterway. The final site does not protrude a significant distance into the West Duwamish waterway. Lockheed Shipyards acquired the facility in 1959 and conducted shipbuilding operations there until 1986. In April 1997, Lockheed sold the upland property and its legal rights to the submerged portions of the site to the Port of Seattle. The remedy for the contaminated sediments included demolition of 3 piers, three shipways and one finger pier. The piers and shipways primarily consist of timber superstructures supported by approximately 6000 piles. Contaminants found in sediments which were either dredged or capped are arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, PAHs and PCBs. The metal contaminants were associated with sand blast grit and paint clips.

Remedial actions for both of these sites as established by the EPA include preventing use of large anchors on the cap. This rulemaking is necessary to assist the EPA in that remedial action.

We received two positive comments in favor of the proposed rule. One commenter simply expressed support for the proposed rule. The second discussed the environmental benefits of creating an RNA that protects the sediment cap as well as supported the points made in our regulatory analysis. There were no changes made to the rule based on these comments.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This expectation is based on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic, and prohibited activities are not routine for the designated areas. There have been no changes to the proposed rule published inFederal RegisterAugust 1, 2011 (76 FR 45738).

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor, dredge, spud, lay cable or disturb the seabed in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not have a significant economic impact on small entities due to its minimal restrictive area and the opportunity for a waiver to be granted for any legitimate use of the seabed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In preparation for this rulemaking, on October 8, 2010, Sector Puget Sound conducted a tribal consultation with representatives from the Suquamish and Muckleshoot tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The group noted that the sediment caps were in the usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing grounds of both tribes. Their main concern was that this RNA would prohibit them from exercising their U&A fishing. The Coast Guard and EPA clarified that nothing in this rulemaking is intended to conflict with these tribes' treaty fishing rights and they are not restricted from any type of fishing in the described areas. As a result of the consultation the Coast Guard added paragraph b.(3) to the regulation. There were no comments to the NPRM concerning tribal implications.

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners and vessels intending to transit on the East River in the vicinity of the Brooklyn Bridge where damaged corrugated metal scaffoldings and loosely hanging cables pose a potential hazard to navigation. Temporary repairs of the damaged section of the scaffolding are currently ongoing. The removal of the scaffolding is expected to take approximately three to four weeks. During this period falling debris may pose an imminent danger to the safety of the vessels and their occupants transiting the East River in the vicinity of the Brooklyn Bridge. Therefore, a temporary safety zone to protect transiting mariners and vessels from this hazard is needed immediately.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication because to do otherwise would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is required to protect mariners and vessels transiting under the bridge while workers conduct emergency repairs and removal of the damaged scaffolding.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 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.

On March 14, 2012 the Coast Guard received a report that a crane barge struck the scaffolding under the eastern span of the Brooklyn Bridge. As a result of the allision the corrugated metal panels that make up the scaffolding structure were damaged and some of the cables that supported the scaffolding were broken and are loosely hangingapproximately 15 feet from the bottom of the bridge, effectively reducing the vertical clearance of the bridge. As a result of the decreased clearance, Vessel Traffic Service New York implemented a temporary measure restricting vessels with an air draft greater than 90 feet from transiting under the Brooklyn Bridge.

During a meeting with New York City Office of Emergency Management the Coast Guard was advised that some of the corrugated metal scaffolding panels that were struck and damaged were not properly secured and may pose a hazard to vessels intending to transit under that portion of the Brooklyn Bridge. The Coast Guard and New York Police Department Harbor Unit began advising vessels to transit around the impacted area. New York City Office of Emergency Management on behalf of the Unified Command requested that the Coast Guard establish a temporary safety zone to restrict vessels from transiting under the eastern portion of the Brooklyn Bridge until emergency temporary repairs and removal of the scaffolding and cables have been completed.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and their occupants during the emergency repairs and removal of the scaffolding under the bridge. The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that establishing a temporary safety zone to restrict vessels from transiting on the East River under the eastern portion of the Brooklyn Bridge where scaffolding are being repaired or removed will help ensure the safety of persons and property and help minimize the associated risks associated with the emergency repair work.

The COTP is establishing a temporary safety zone to ensure the safety of mariners, passengers, and vessels during the emergency repair and removal work necessary to stabilize the damaged scaffolding on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of the East River directly below the scaffolding under the eastern portion of the bridge, from the centerline of the bridge to the tower on the Brooklyn side. The safety zone will encompass the navigable waters within a 270 yards by 50 yards area on the eastern side of the East River directly below the east span of the Brooklyn Bridge. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP New York or the designated representative. The COTP or the designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive order 13563, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

This determination is based on the fact that a temporary safety zone will restrict access to a small portion of the navigable waterways of the East River. Vessels will be able to navigate around the safety zone. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the temporary safety zone with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative.

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 a small portion of the East River during the effective period.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions 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 establishment of a temporary safety zone on the waters of the East River in the vicinity of Brooklyn Bridge. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

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

Regulatory Information

On February 27, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rule making entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in theFederal Register(77 FR 11426). We received 0 letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Currently, 33 CFR 165.929 lists seventy different locations in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone at which safety zones have been permanently established. Each of these seventy safety zones correspond to an annually recurring marine event. During an annual review of 33 CFR 165.929, it was found that the details of two of the annually recurring events have changed. It was also determined that five additional recurring marine events require the implementation of permanent safety zones. Thus, this rule revises the enforcement date and time of two events and adds five recurring events that require safety zones. In addition, this rule revises the organizational structure of 33 CFR 165.929 so that the events will be listed numerically rather than alphabetically. Listing the events numerically is meant to make it easier for the public to identify the annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.

No comments were received regarding this rule.

This rule amends the regulations found in 33 CFR 165.929, Annual Events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Specifically, this rule revises § 165.929 in its entirety. The revision includes the modification of the name and enforcement period of one safety zone, the modification of the enforcement period of one other safety zone, and the addition of five new safety zones. Each of the existing and newly added safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with various maritime events. Such hazards include obstructions to the navigable channels, explosive dangers associated with various maritime events. Although this rule will remain in effect year round, the safety zones within it will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after each corresponding marine event.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the zones in this rule will be enforced. Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7(a), such means of may include, among other things, publication in theFederal Registerand Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of a safety zone in this section is cancelled.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within each of the below safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, each safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, each safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through each safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these safety zones.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have asignificant 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in any one of the below established safety zones while the safety zone is being enforced. These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Each safety zone in this rule will be in effect for only a few hours within any given 24 hour period. Each of the safety zones will be in effect only once per year. Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around each zone. Moreover, vessels will be allowed to pass through each zone at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

This rule will not affect the 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. This rule involves the establishment, disestablishment, and changing of safety zones, and thus, paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 in Commandant Instruction M16475.lD applies.

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

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information regarding the event until February 16, 2012. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have 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 potential danger to race participants 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. 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 protect Volvo Ocean Racing Youth Regatta participants and the general public from hazards associated with sailing vessels racing on the navigable waters of the United States.

On May 12, 2012 and May 13, 2012, the Volvo Ocean Race Miami will be hosting the Volvo Ocean Race Youth Regatta in Miami, Florida. The event will consist of 16 to 36 sailing vessels racing in the Port of Miami Turning Basin. No spectator vessels are expected.

The safety zone encompasses certain navigable waters of Biscayne Bay in Miami, Florida. The safety zone will be enforced daily from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. on May 12, 2012 and May 13, 2012. 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 Miami 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 Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. 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.

Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under Executive Order 12866.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for a total of 14 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 Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (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 Miami 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 Biscayne Bay encompassed within the safety zone from 9 a.m. on May 12, 2012 through 4 p.m. on May 13, 2012. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review 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 establishing a temporary safetyzone that will be enforced for a total of 14 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:

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. The Coast Guard did not receive necessary information regarding the event with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments in advance of the effective date of the security zone. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to protect U.S. Navy vessels, the public,and the surrounding waterway from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 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 protect U.S. Navy vessels, the public, and the surrounding waterways from potential terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

On April 25, 2012, U.S. Navy vessels will be transiting into Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for 2012 Fleet Week. These vessels will remain in port until April 30, 2012.

33 CFR 165.2025 provides for a 500 yard regulated area of water surrounding U.S. Navy vessels that are greater than 100 feet. This naval vessel protection zone is not sufficient for 2012 Fleet Week due to: (1) The large number and types of U.S. Navy vessels participating in the event; and (2) the anticipated increase of vessel traffic during the event. The temporary security zone encompasses the main shipping channel into Port Everglades Harbor and certain waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The northern boundary of the security zone is the northern extension of the turning basin at the SE. 17th Street Causeway Bridge. The eastern boundary of the security zone is the mouth of Port Everglades Harbor. The southern boundary of the security zone is near berth 29 of Port Everglades Harbor. The western boundary is the westernmost point of all the piers, slips, and turning basins of Port Everglades Harbor. The safety zone will be enforced during the transit of U.S. Navy vessels into and out of Port Everglades for 2012 Fleet Week. The security zone will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 25, 2012 and April 30, 2012. The security zone may cease to be enforced prior to the end of the stated enforcement periods if the U.S. Navy vessels arrive in, or depart from, Port Everglades early.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter or remain in the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter or remain in the security zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security 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.

Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under Executive Order 12866.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The security zone will only be enforced for a total of 14 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter or remain in the security zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels may still enter or remain in the security zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the security 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 or remain within that portion of Port Everglades Harbor encompassed within the security zone from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 and Monday, April 30, 2012. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review 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 establishing a temporary security zone that will be enforced for a total of 14 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:

Table of Contents I. Summary of SIP Revisions II. Response to Comments III. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initialsActorCAAmean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The wordsEPA, we, usorourmean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initialsSIPmean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The wordsStateor Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(v) The wordCommissionmeans the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission.

Colorado adopted revisions to its procedural rules on January 16, 1998 and submitted part of the revised procedural rules to EPA on November 5, 1999.1 The revision consisted of wording changes to Section 1.11 of its procedural rules. Colorado's procedural rules govern all procedures and hearings before the Commission and certain procedures and hearings before the Air Pollution Control Division within the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The revisions to the Commission's procedural rules, which were last revised in 1984, were intended to bring the Commission current with all applicable procedural requirements for their official actions. Section 1.11 addresses the requirements of section 128 of the CAA.

Separately, on January 7, 2008, Colorado provided a submittal to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, within three years of EPA's promulgation of a new or revised standard, states are required to make a submittal, known as an “infrastructure SIP,” to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2). Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements, such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA approved most of the January 7, 2008 SIP revision on May 18, 2011. However, the remaining portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is being approved in this action.

EPA did not receive comments regarding our proposed rule for Colorado's procedural rules.

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress toward attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The Colorado SIP revisions that are approved in this action do not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The revisions do not make substantive changes that relax the stringency of the Colorado SIP; instead, the submittal of Section 1.11 of Colorado's procedural rule meets the requirement of section 128 of the CAA. Therefore, the revisions that are approved in this action satisfy section 110(l) requirements.

We are approving Section 1.11 of Colorado's procedural rule as adopted by the Commission on January 16, 1998and submitted to EPA on November 5, 1999, to meet the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. We are also approving of a portion of Colorado's January 7, 2008 submittal to meet the “infrastructure” requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, specifically the portion intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 11, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background for This Action A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does this action address? II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initialsActorCAAmean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The wordsEPA, we, usorourmean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initialsSIPmean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The wordsStateorColoradomean the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise.

On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72744), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed approval of portions of Colorado's revisions to the Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements (Regulation No. 3) that incorporate EPA's December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. The State of Colorado submitted the formal SIP revision on July 11, 2005 followed by a supplemental submittal on October 25, 2005. This final action updates the federally approved SIP to reflect changes made by Colorado that were reviewed and deemed approvable into the Colorado SIP (Code of Federal Regulations part 52, subpart G).

On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations. These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions included provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control projects (PCPs). On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations. On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions. Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the “reasonable possibility” standard for when a source must keep certain project related records.

Colorado's July 11, 2005 submittal and October 25, 2005 supplemental submittal request approval for its regulations to implement the NSR Reform provisions that were not vacated or remanded by the June 24, 2005, court decision.

EPA is approving those revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements) that incorporate EPA's December 30, 2002 NSR Reforms (with the exceptions noted in the table below). EPA is also approving revisions Colorado made to Regulation No. 3 prior to the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking that incorporate the revisions EPA made to the federal NSR rules on July 21, 1992 (with the exceptions noted in the table below). These revisions are referred to as the WEPCO rule (for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company court ruling) and added definitions and provisions that have been incorporated into the April 16, 2004 version of Regulation No. 3.

In addition to incorporating the NSR Reforms into the April 16, 2004 Regulation No. 3 revision, Colorado also restructured Regulation No. 3, including adding a new Part D titledConcerning Major Stationary Source New SourceReview and Prevention of Significant Deterioration.The new Part D contains most of the NSR/PSD definitions, provisions, and sections that were revised or newly created by the NSR Reform rule. In addition, numerous Regulation No. 3 Part A and Part B NSR/PSD definitions, provisions, and sections not revised by the NSR Reform rule, but already approved into the SIP, have been moved into the new Part D. EPA is approving the revisions to Regulation No. 3 creating the new Part D with the exceptions noted in the table below.

The revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 have structured Regulation No. 3 as follows: Part A now contains general provisions applicable to reporting and permitting, Part B addresses construction permits; Part C (not a part of the SIP) includes the operating permit program; and Part D deals with the Nonattainment NSR and PSD programs for major stationary sources. Minor sources will only be subject to Parts A and B; major sources (as defined for the Operating Permit program) are governed by Parts A, B and C. Major stationary sources must comply with Parts A, B, C and D. In particular, this reorganization separated the major stationary source NSR provisions from the construction permit requirements applicable to all sources.

Part A Changes. EPA is approving changes Colorado made to Part A where the NSR Reform rule added or changed specific language used in this Part (as specified in the table below). In addition, EPA is approving changes Colorado made in Part A that moved the provisions applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). EPA is not taking action, in this document, on any other revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part A made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. These other changes are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below.

Part B Changes. EPA is approving only the NSR Reform rule conforming changes Colorado made in Part B, which moved the provisions applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). In this document, EPA is not taking action on any other revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part B made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. These other changes are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below.

Part D Changes. Colorado created Regulation No. 3 Part D in order to make Colorado's air quality program consistent with the EPA NSR Reform rules. The references to NSR requirements in Part D include both the nonattainment NSR and PSD programs. EPA is approving the new Part D except for the specific provisions noted in the table below.

The following table specifies provisions of Regulation No. 3 that Colorado revised/renumbered or newly added in order to incorporate EPA's NSR Reform and WEPCO rules and to create a separate NSR/PSD major stationary source part (Part D). In addition, some of the provisions that were proposed for approval in the notice of proposed rulemaking that EPA published on December 7, 2005 are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below.

Environment Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense jointly commented on our December 2005 proposed action. We have carefully considered the comments, and, as part of that consideration, have obtained information from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in order to assist us in deciding how to address certain comments. Below we provide summaries of, and our responses to, the significant adverse comments. Nothing in them has caused us to change our action from what we proposed.

Comment No. 1:The commenters assert that “[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions that were not vacated by the D.C. Circuit inNew Yorkv.EPA[citation omitted] allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases to occur.” Comments at 4. In their main comment letter and in attached materials, the commenters argue thatColorado's SIP revision will allow for increased air pollution, and they focus on three main aspects of Colorado's revised Regulation 3: (1) Revisions to the method of calculating baseline actual emissions for existing sources; (2) revisions to the applicability test for existing sources; and (3) the plantwide applicability limitation (PAL) provisions. The commenters assert that approval of Colorado's proposed SIP revision would violate section 110(l) of the CAA, because “EPA cannot make a finding that revising Colorado's permit provisions so that they track the non-vacated provisions of the 2002 rule `would not interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.' ” Comments at 5.

EPA Response No. 1:Section 110(l) of the CAA states that “[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section 110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality. SeeKentucky Resources Council, Inc.v.EPA,467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006);GHASPv.EPA,No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008);see also, e.g.,70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and final rules, upheld inKentucky Resources,which discuss EPA's interpretation of section 110(l)).

EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP revision will not “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA]” in violation of section 110(l) of the CAA because, as explained below, the revision will result in effects on air quality that are neutral or beneficial. The Colorado SIP revision tracks the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were not vacated by the Court of Appeals inNew Yorkv.EPA,413 F.3d 3, 21-31 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Overall, EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result of implementing Colorado's rules will be consistent with EPA's analysis of the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules—that the effects will be somewhere between neutral and providing modest contribution to reasonable further progress when the 2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared to the pre-Reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the environmental impacts of these three components of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules is informative of how Colorado's adoption of NSR Reform (based on the federal rules) will affect emissions.See generallySupplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (Nov. 21, 2002) (“Supplemental Analysis”).1

EPA's conclusion rests primarily on the national-scale analysis that EPA conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. This national analysis indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The three significant changes in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (that were not vacated by the court) were: (1) Plantwide applicability limits (PALs); (2) the 2-in-10 baseline (also known as the ten-year lookback); and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. EPA's Supplemental Analysis discussed each of these three changes individually, and addresses many of the issues raised by commenters.

The environmental impacts of NSR Reform in Colorado will not be substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis. Furthermore, with limited exceptions discussed below, the commenters do not raise Colorado-specific arguments or provide Colorado-specific data to suggest that the results of the NSR Reform in Colorado will be substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis. Where the commenters have relied on generic or national arguments against NSR Reform, we have relied on the analyses conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform rules for our response.

It is worth emphasizing that, while the comments focus exclusively on how Colorado's SIP revision may allow certain facilities to increase emissions without undergoing NSR, the NSR process does not prohibit emissions increases. Nor does it regulate facilities that simply increase their hours of operation or production rate over what has occurred in recent years, resulting in increased annual emissions. Rather, NSR regulates construction of new major sources, and of physical or operational changes at existing major sources that result in significant emissions increases, and requires the new source or modification to control its emissions using stringent technology-based standards, as well as meet other requirements. In some cases (e.g., a modification at an already well-controlled unit) the benefits of the NSR program may be small.SeeSupplemental Analysis at 5. At the same time, avoidance of an NSR permitting process does not necessarily mean that emissions increase, since facilities may be discouraged by the permitting process itself from undertaking environmentally beneficial projects.See id.at 5. Finally, the NSR program can lead to changes in source behavior that have environmental effects (including potentially beneficial effects) even for sources that do not get an NSR permit, and permitting data tell us little about these effects.See id.at 5-6.

For these reasons, focusing entirely on hypothetical emissions increases that might avoid NSR misstates the overall effect of the NSR revisions that Colorado and other states have adopted. The question is not simply whether the SIP revision would theoretically allow certain sources to make emissions-increasing changes that might be subject to NSR under the current SIP but would not be subject to NSR in the revised SIP. Rather, the question is whether the SIP revision, as a whole, would interfere with applicable CAA requirements. Since the focus of this analysis is on the SIP as a whole, and since NSR Reform is expected to lead to overall emissions reductions even though emissions at some individual sources may increase, the commenters' arguments (arguing that certain individual sources' emissions may increase) do not show that the SIP revision as a whole would interfere with applicable CAA requirements. That said, we respond in detail below to the commenters' significant adverse comments regarding specific alleged emissions increases that would avoid NSR under Colorado's SIP revision.

The commenters argue that revisions to Regulation No. 3's method of calculating baseline actual emissions for existing sources will allow those sources to “inflate” baseline actual emissions, and thereby substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. Specifically, the commenters argue that (1) the rule's definition of baseline actual emissions enables facilities to choose the highest consecutive two-year period over the prior ten years, thus treating high emissions that may not have been emitted for many years as “baseline” emissions; (2) the regulation allows sources to select a different two-year period for each pollutant, thus creating a “baseline” that is higher than actualemissions of the facility in any actual two-year period over the last decade; and (3) the regulation calculation “rewards” facilities for malfunctions, upsets and unusual emissions during start-up and shut-downs by allowing facilities to inflate the baseline with those emissions. We disagree that these changes will result in substantial emissions increases, and discuss each in turn.

First, with regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded in the context of the NSR Reform regulation that “the environmental impact from the change in baseline * * * will not result in any significant change in benefits derived from the NSR program.” Supplemental Analysis at 13. As we explained in the Supplemental Analysis, the rule change will not alter the baseline at all for many sources.SeeSupplemental Analysis at 13. Furthermore, for other instances, EPA explained:

The commenters also provided Colorado-specific emissions data to support their hypothesis that allowing a 2-in-10 baseline calculation could lead to significant emissions increases in Colorado. EPA has evaluated this analysis and concluded that the commenters overlooked other important factors involved with the baseline calculation and oversimplified interpretation of the baseline calculation changes. The commenters also failed to present any rationale that allowing a 2-in-10 baseline calculation will, in fact, cause actual emission increases in Colorado that would not occur absent the Reform rule. Applicability of NSR is determined on a project-specific basis. Commenters have not explained why there should be reason to believe that more projects will actually occur, or that higher-emitting projects will actually occur, as a result of a 2-in-10 calculation, rather than the baseline calculation specified in pre-Reform NSR rules. Appendix F of the Supplemental Analysis provides a number of reasons why the majority of sources will not be affected by the change in baseline calculation. The following circumstances at particular sources would not result in a change in baseline: new sources and new units at existing sources, electric utility steam generating units, sources with recent high levels of emissions, and sources with recent emissions comparable to the past. The Supplemental Analysis explains that NSR Reform requires “use of current emission limits that account for enforceable pollution control measures that have been put into place.” Supplemental Analysis at F-4. While the commenters did remove electric utility steam generating units from their analysis, they did not evaluate the change in baseline calculation with respect to the other circumstances described above. In particular, they acknowledge that they did not evaluate other provisions of state and federal law that could limit pollution increases (comment 0020.21 in docket). In lieu of doing this evaluation for Colorado, the commenters cite an October 2003 report2 that looked at the impact of non-NSR provisions in relation to the 2-in-10 baseline calculation in 12 states, of which Colorado was not one. EPA has previously noted that this report is “overly simplistic and erroneous in its interpretation of NSR.” 73 FR 76563 (Dec. 17, 2008).3

Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to assume that sources would be able to increase their emissions by simply relying on a higher baseline calculation that a 10-year lookback may (or may not) afford, for at least four reasons.

1. As mentioned above, there are several circumstances that the commenters overlooked, such as the existing rules' provision to select an alternate representative baseline period, and enforceable controls or other enforceable limitations, that factor into the ability to take a higher baseline by looking back 10 years as opposed to 2 years. With respect to the existing rules' provision allowing for a source to request an alternate representative baseline period, CDPHE has informed EPA that, even under its current NSR rules, it has approved at least four requests for a more representative baseline other than the most recent two years.4 The commenters did not take this into account when calculating the hypothetical emissions increases that might occur under the 2-in-10 baseline calculation.

2. The commenters have attempted to show that a 10-year lookback can yield a higherfacility-widebaseline, but NSR applicability is determined for a particular project affecting particular emissions units. For existing emissions units, the source would likely use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test, which compares projected actual emissions to the baseline actual emissionsfor that emissions unit.See Regulation No. 4, Part D, section I.B.1. The project's overall NSR applicability is determined by summing this difference across all emissions units involved in the project. See id. The possibility that an emissions unit not involved in the project (i.e. not having an emissions increase from the project) might have a high baseline actual emissions is irrelevant in this context.

3. The prospect that the ten-year lookback mightallowcertain sources to use a higher baseline and therefore increase emissions (as compared to a two-year-lookback) does not mean that sources will actually do so.See Natural Resources Defense Councilv.Jackson,650 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The two-in-ten rule, for example,mightallow a business to increase average emissions, butdoesit? So far, we have no answer to that question, either from actual experience in adopting states or through efforts to test a model by retrodiction.”) (emphases in original). As explained in depth in the Supplemental Analysis, EPA has concluded that any emissions increases made possible by the ten-year lookback will be balanced by emissions reductions elsewhere as part of the overall NSR Reform.

4. Any source modification that, because of the changes to the baseline calculation, would avoid major NSR would nevertheless be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the minor source permitting program in Colorado that is in place to maintain or makeprogress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While it is true that Colorado's minor source permitting program does not require Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in actual practice Colorado has a track record of progress towards attainment of the NAAQS given that it currently attains all NAAQS except ozone.5 Furthermore, within the ozone nonattainment area, the minor source permitting program in Colorado requires Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for stationary sources. The commenters' failure to consider this RACT requirement in their analysis of the 2-in-10 baseline calculation contributes to an unrealistically inflated hypothetical emissions increase due to the revised baseline calculation.

With respect to the fact that a facility may select a different two-year baseline period for each pollutant, NSR applicability has long been evaluated on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and the NSR Reform rule did not change this. Whether a modification results in a net emissions increase exceeding significance thresholds is determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and BACT (or, where appropriate, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)) is determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Different pollutants may be generated by different equipment or production processes within a facility. When comparing emissions from different years, it is not unusual for a facility to have a higher level of one pollutant than another in a given year, and then the reverse relationship in a subsequent year. In many such cases, the reason is simply that the facility operates several different processes (e.g., associated with several different products or operations) with different emissions characteristics, and, due to variations in product cycles, the facility runs different processes or production lines more in some years than others. Moreover, the facility may use entirely different control technologies to control different pollutants. It is therefore not unreasonable to calculate a facility's emissions increase and net emissions increase for a particular pollutant with respect to the baseline actual emissions for that pollutant, even if the variability of emissions of that pollutant differs from that of another pollutant emitted at the same facility. Moreover, the commenters have not provided any specific data suggesting that allowing a facility to select its baseline period on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, rather than requiring a facility to use a single two-year baseline period for all regulated NSR pollutants, will actually result in emissions increases in Colorado.

Finally, with respect to startup, shutdown, and malfunction, Regulation No. 3, in accordance with the federal regulation, defines “Projected Actual Emissions” as including “emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.” See Regulation No. 3, Part D, Paragraph II.A.36.b.(ii). Thus, startup, shutdown, and malfunction are included in both the calculation of both baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions. With respect to the exclusion for “non-compliant emissions that occurred while the source was operating above any emission limitation,” the application of this exclusion is straightforward. The calculation of baseline actual emissions cannot include periods of time when those emissions exceed an emissions limitation. Whether enforcement action has been taken is irrelevant for purposes of calculating the baseline actual emissions.

The commenters argue that the revised applicability test would allow existing sources to substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. Specifically, the commenters object to (1) extending the actual-to-projected-actual test to all sources, and (2) excluding emissions associated with increased demand (so long as the facility could have accommodated that growth before the modification).

We disagree that these changes will result in substantial emissions increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific information in support of these arguments, and consequently our response relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking record.

With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded that “the environmental impacts of the switch to the actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, the vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change. Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.” Supplemental Analysis at 14, Appendix G;see also67 FR 80186, 80196.

With regard to the demand growth exclusion, the commenters' arguments have been addressed in the NSR Reform rulemaking.See67 FR 80186, 80202-03;see also New York,413 F.3d at 31-33.

The commenters argue that the PAL provisions would allow existing sources to substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR.

We disagree that the PAL provisions will result in substantial emissions increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific information in support of these arguments, only a Colorado-specific example to illustrate the non-controversial statement that potential-to-emit can be larger than actual emissions. (comment 0020.18 in docket). Consequently, our response relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking record.

The Supplemental Analysis explained that “EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as well as other benefits.” Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further explained that:

Comment No. 2:EPA's proposed approval contravenes the CAA's General Savings Clause set forth in section 193 of the Act.

EPA Response No. 2:EPA's response to the section 193 issues raised by the commenters involves many of the same elements of the response above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by reference here. Section 193 states (in relevant part) that “[n]o control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any areawhich is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.” 42 U.S.C. 7515.

Assuming for purposes of this discussion that section 193 does apply to the instant action,6 as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental Analysis that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are expected to have at least a neutral environmental effect. EPA has no information indicating that findings associated with EPA's Supplemental Analysis would not apply in Colorado—that is, that Colorado's SIP revisions would not have at least a neutral (and possibly a modest beneficial) environmental effect.

Therefore, even if section 193 does apply to this action, EPA does not agree with the commenters' assertions that the SIP revisions approved in this action raise a section 193 concern. EPA is simply approving Colorado's SIP revisions that adopt rules equivalent to the federal rules, and, as discussed earlier in this notice, the Supplemental Analysis that EPA developed to support adoption of the federal rules suggests that the effects of the revised rules will be at least neutral. The Colorado SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR-related elements, including a comprehensive minor source program.

Comment No. 3:EPA's proposed approval will interfere with the ozone attainment demonstration (with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) for the Denver Metro area and interfere with the Early Action Compact (EAC).

EPA Response No. 3:These comments are no longer relevant since much has changed regarding the EAC and Denver's ozone attainment status between now and when the EPA first proposed approval of NSR Reform for Colorado.

Denver failed to meet the requirements of the EAC and, as of November 2007, was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Since that time, EPA has approved a SIP revision (76 FR 47443) for the State of Colorado that includes an attainment demonstration by November 2010 for the Denver Metro Area. Ambient air monitoring data also supports the attainment demonstration, with no ozone monitors in the Denver Metro Area showing a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard using design values from 2007-2009 (82 ppb) or from 2008-2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009-2011 also shows attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Comment No. 4:Colorado is preparing to make substantial revisions to its Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) program that will further undermine the ozone attainment demonstration for the Denver Metro Area.

EPA Response No. 4:The comment is outside the scope of this action since EPA did not propose to take any action with respect to Colorado's I/M program. Furthermore, many aspects of the I/M program in the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range have changed since this comment was originally made. On September 25, 2006, the State of Colorado submitted a SIP submittal for the CAA section 175A(b) second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and Longmont areas. This SIP submittal also included revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 11 which included the removal of the I/M program in both carbon monoxide maintenance areas. EPA approved these second 10-year maintenance plan SIP revisions on August 17, 2007 (see 72 FR 46148). However, in our August 17, 2007 action, we drew special attention to the point that the I/M program would continue in both areas for purposes of the ozone element of the SIP: “* * * the removal of the I/M program from Denver's revised CO maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The State relies on the I/M program in the Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro area.” (72 FR 46155, August 17, 2007). We also note that we had previously approved Fort Collins' and Greeley's revised CO maintenance plans which also involved the removal of the Basic I/M program from the SIP for both areas (see 68 FR 43316, July 22, 2003 and 70 FR 48650, August 19, 2005, respectively). Those actions effectively eliminated Basic I/M in Larimer and Weld Counties; however, we note that those basic I/M programs had only been in place for purposes of CO emission reductions.

Colorado has submitted two other SIP revisions, after our August 17, 2007Federal Registeraction, that involve amendments to Regulation Number 11. Those revisions involve a low emitter index (LEI) of vehicles with respect to the Clean Screen element of Regulation Number 11 and to eliminate obsolete provisions for gasoline filter neck inspections and CFC (refrigerant) leak checks. The latter submittal has since been withdrawn by the State and we have not acted on the LEI submittal yet. However, we do note that since our most recent action to Federally approve revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 11 (see 72 FR 46148, August 17, 2007), Colorado has reinstated the I/M programs in Larimer and Weld Counties for the purpose of reducing ozone precursor emissions. These I/M programs contain State-only enforceable provisions and the re-implementation of the I/M programs began on November 1, 2010. These State-only I/M expansion provisions for Larimer and Weld Counties appear in Colorado's Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, 5 CCR 1001-13, current as State-adopted on January 20, 2011; State-effective on March 2, 2011. We note that EPA has approved an attainment demonstration of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range (76 FR 47443, August 5, 2011) and this attainment demonstration included ozone precursor emission reductions from the continued implementation of Colorado's Federally-approved I/M program. Furthermore, as stated above, ambient data shows attaining monitors using design values from 2007-2009 (82 ppb) and from 2008-2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009-2011 also shows attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Comment No. 5:Title 1, Part C, Section 160 of the CAA states that air quality in national parks must be protected. It is contrary to this CAA section for EPA to approve a rule revision that would increase air pollution in Colorado's Class I areas. Section 110(l) is proof that such a SIP revision should not be approved.

EPA Response No. 5:EPA's response to the air quality in national parks issue raised by the commenters involves many of the same elements of the response above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by reference here. EPA's national analysis in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact.

The primary issue raised by the commenters was the impact of nitrogen deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) which resides fully within the boundaries of Colorado. The commenters incorporate by reference a September 1, 2004 petition to theDepartment of Interior (DOI) from Colorado Trout Unlimited and Environmental Defense. The petition asks DOI to “[c]all for the EPA and the State of Colorado to fulfill their legal responsibilities to lower NOXand Ammonia to protect human health, plants and ecosystems, and scenic vistas at Rocky Mountain National Park and to fully mitigate nitrogen deposition above the identified critical load.” Partly in response to this petition, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the National Park Service, EPA, and the CDPHE to form the RMNP Initiative. The agencies agreed to pursue a more in-depth review of the issues related to nitrogen deposition in RMNP and a course of action to address them. As a result, the Initiative formulated the “Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Contingency Plan” which was endorsed by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on June 17, 2010. The plan includes goals for reducing nitrogen deposition incrementally over 5 year periods with contingencies in place should these goals not be reached.

In addition to the contingency measures adopted by the multi-agency plan, it is expected that current and future ozone planning in Colorado should positively impact nitrogen deposition in RMNP. Reduction in ozone precursors (e.g. NOX) that result from the control measures adopted in Colorado's recent federally approved ozone attainment demonstration SIP will also contribute to a reduction of nitrogen deposition in RMNP.

Furthermore, Colorado is subject to the Protection of Visibility requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, including the Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) requirements, the Regional Haze requirements, and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission requirements. Each of these programs requires Colorado to achieve a variety of emissions reductions aimed at protecting visibility in national parks and other Class I areas. In particular, EPA expects that Colorado's SIP revision submission to meet the Regional Haze requirements, including both the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls and the long-term strategy for regional haze, will provide NOXreductions that will reduce the nitrogen deposition in RMNP.

EPA is approving portions of Colorado's revisions to Regulation No. 3, submitted by Colorado on July 11, 2005 and October 25, 2005, that relate to the PSD and NSR construction permits program. These revisions meet the minimum program requirements of the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR Reform rulemaking. Several of the remaining revisions made by Colorado to Regulation No. 3 as adopted on April 16, 2004 by the Colorado AQCC are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit byJune 11, 2012.Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act.This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act.As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification.This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act.This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act.As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification.This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act.This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act.As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification.This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: