In an interim rule1 effective and published in theFederal Registeron September 29, 2011 (76 FR 60357-60358, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0036), we amended the golden nematode regulations in 7 CFR part 301 by removing the townships of Elba and Byron in Genesee County, NY, from the list of generally infested areas.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before November 28, 2011. We received one comment from a State agriculture department opposing the removal of the townships of Byron and Elba in Genesee County from the list of areas generally infested with golden nematode. The commenter stated that APHIS did not provide sufficient biological information to support the action.

As discussed in the September 2011 interim rule, the townships of Elba and Byron were regulated for nematode on the basis of their proximity to and association with three fields in Orleans County, NY, in which golden nematode was detected. Golden nematode had not been detected in these townships prior to them being regulated. Surveys conducted in the townships of Elba and Byron from 1977 to 2010 had negative laboratory results for the detection of golden nematode. Because golden nematode was not detected in these townships during the 33 years surveys were conducted and had not been detected prior to the surveys, we have concluded that this pest was not and is not present in these areas.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

In an interim rule1 effective and published on November 22, 2011, in the Federal Register(76 FR 72081-72082, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0074), we amended the Karnal bunt regulations in 7 CFR part 301 by removing areas and fields in Riverside County, CA, from the list of regulated areas in § 301.89-3(f). That action relieved restrictions that were no longer necessary on the interstate movement of regulated articles from this area.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before January 23, 2012. We received one comment by that date. The comment, from a private citizen, supported the interim rule. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this rule and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about privacy and the docket. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

On February 7, 2012, the FAA issued Amendment No. 1-67, entitled “Removal of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc Definitions” (77 FR 9163). The FAA requested that comments on that rule be received on or before March 19, 2012.

By letter dated March 16, 2012, ICAO requested that the FAA consider postponing the effective date of the rule until the rule is reviewed through an international process. ICAO stated that due to the short time frame, it was not in the position to understand the full implications of removing the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions. ICAO stated that additional time is necessary to adequately assess the impact of the Direct Final Rule and prepare comments.

In accordance with § 11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the request made by ICAO. The petitioner has shown a substantive interest in the rule and good cause for the reopening. The FAA has determined that reopening of the comment period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action.

Accordingly, the comment period for Amendment No. 1-67 is reopened until May 14, 2012.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from implementing the rule. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the Direct Final Rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rule, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after thecomment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this rule in light of the comments it receives.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policiesor

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page athttp://www.fdys.gov.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as athttp://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Background documents or comments received may be read athttp://www.regulations.govat any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

A number of inadvertent editing errors in the airworthiness standards of § 33.87 have been identified by the FAA. Some errors apply to the standards for one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings for rotorcraft turbine engines. Others are simply plain language errors. This technical amendment corrects those errors in § 33.87. None of the corrections are substantive in nature, and none will impose any additional burden on any person.

In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0034, dated March 5, 2010, corrected March 8, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

On December 14, 2011, the FAA published in theFederal Registera notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Columbia, SC, and establish Class E airspace at Pelion, SC, Docket No. FAA-2011-1196 (76 FR 77727). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Columbia, SC, by removing Corporate Airport from the airspace designation and establishes Class E airspace at Pelion, SC, to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Lexington County Airport at Pelion, Pelion, SC, formerly Corporate Airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the design of new arrival procedures, and for continued safetyand management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates also are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Columbia, SC, and establishes controlled airspace at Lexington County Airport at Pelion, Pelion, SC.

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

Background

On July 15, 2011, as part of the Administration's ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a proposed rule (76 FR 41958) (herein “the July 15 proposed rule”) that set forth a framework for how articles the President determines, in accordance with section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List (USML) instead would be controlled under the Commerce Control List (CCL) in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of theExport Administration Regulations (EAR). With that proposed rule, BIS also proposed establishing a new Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) series, 0Y521, on the CCL, which would be equivalent to United States Munitions List (USML) Category XXI (Miscellaneous Articles), but with some limitations, and requested public comments thereon. The 0Y521 ECCN series will provide a mechanism for identifying and controlling items that warrant export controls, but that are not yet categorized on the CCL or USML, such as emerging technologies. It will provide a temporary control category for such items, while the U.S. Government works to adopt a control through the relevant multilateral regime(s); to determine an appropriate longer-term control over the item; or determines that the item does not warrant control on the CCL. With this final rule, BIS adopts this proposal, with some modifications described below, and makes corresponding necessary changes to the EAR.

Consistent with the July 15 proposed rule, BIS is amending the EAR to establish new ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521 and to make corresponding changes. As proposed in the July 15 proposed rule, ECCN 0Y521 items will be subject to a nearly worldwide license requirement (i.e., for every country except Canada) with a case-by-case license review policy, through regional stability (RS Column 1) controls. The U.S. Government will review the sensitivity of each potential ECCN 0Y521 item on a case-by-case basis and make a positive determination regarding the sensitivity of each item.

Items classified under ECCN 0Y521 will stay so-classified from the date a final rule identifying the item is published in theFederal Registeramending the EAR for one year following the date ofFederal Registerpublication, unless the item is re-classified under a different ECCN or the 0Y521 classification is extended. During this time, the U.S. Government will determine whether it is appropriate to submit a proposed control to the applicable export control regime (e.g., the Wassenaar Arrangement) for potential multilateral control, with the understanding that multilateral controls are preferable when practical. An item's ECCN 0Y521 classification may be extended for two one-year periods to provide time for the U.S. Government and multilateral regime(s) to reach agreement on controls for the item. As discussed in the July 15 preamble, the July 15 proposed rule allowed for no more than two one-year extensions provided that the Departments of Commerce, State and Defense made a consensus determination to seek multilateral controls for the ECCN 0Y521 item and the U.S. Government submitted a proposal to obtain multilateral controls over the item. As described below under “Changes from Proposed Rule,” this final rule clarifies that agencies will determine whether a multilateral control is appropriate at the time that the items are classified under ECCN 0Y521. In addition, this final rule allows for further extension beyond three years if the Under Secretary for Industry and Security makes a determination that such extension is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. An extension or re-extension, including a determination by the Under Secretary for Industry and Security, will be published in theFederal Register.

The U.S. Government's decision to identify an item as included in ECCN 0Y521 is a classification based on a determination of whether the item has significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or for foreign policy reasons, not a classification of the item's technical characteristics. ECCN 0Y521 classifications are excluded from the part 756 appeals process. Parties would nonetheless be encouraged to provide to BIS information and comments about the item and the ECCN 0Y521 controls on it.

As proposed in the July 15 proposed rule, BIS is also adding a new paragraph (a)(7) to § 742.6 to describe the regional stability reason for control that applies to items in the 0Y521 series, and is adding a reference to ECCN 0Y521 items in the licensing policy paragraph (b)(1) of the same section. The license review policy will be used to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the export or reexport could contribute directly or indirectly to any country's military capabilities in a manner that would destabilize a region's military balance contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.

In the July 15 proposed rule, BIS proposed that no license exceptions would be available for any item classified under the 0Y521 ECCN series other than License Exception GOV, if the item is within the scope of § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) (Items for official use by personnel and agencies of the U.S. Government). A new § 740.2(a)(14) is being added to reflect this. As described below under “Changes from Proposed Rule,” BIS will have the authority to apply additional license exceptions on an item-specific basis at any time if the Departments of Defense and State concur with such application.

BIS received 43 public comments on the July 15 proposed rule, 19 of which pertained to the ECCN 0Y521 series proposal. Summaries of those comments and BISResponses appear below. Similar comments are consolidated. As noted above, the ECCN 0Y521 series proposal was separated from the rest of the July 15 proposed rule for purposes of this final rule; public comments received on issues other than the 0Y521 provisions remain under review separate from this final rule.

Comment 1:Commenters generally were receptive to, or positive toward, the proposed creation of the ECCN 0Y521 series. One commenter expressed that the addition of the ECCN 0Y521 series is a feature of the EAR long overdue and is consistent with the statutory requirements of the Export Administration Act (EAA) to update the control list as warranted.

Response:BIS agrees the addition of the ECCN 0Y521 series will play an important role on the CCL, along with helping to move forward the Export Control Reform Initiative's goal of structurally aligning the CCL and USML. The CCL is reviewed and updated on a continuous basis, and the new ECCN 0Y521 series will aid in this process by identifying those items where a temporary control is appropriate while the U.S. Government identifies a permanent classification.

Comment 2:Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed three-year maximum that an item could be classified under ECCN 0Y521 was too long.

Response:The July 15 proposed rule stated that items may be classified under ECCN 0Y521 for a one-year period, which may be extended for two one-year periods. This three-year period was intended to provide sufficient time for the U.S. Government and its multilateral regime partners to assess a particular item and determine its appropriate classification. Shortening the maximum period would not provide an adequate opportunity to consider, develop and implement multilateral regime control for such items.

In reviewing the timing associated with proposing multilateral regime controls, BIS determined that, in fact, three years may, on rare occasions, be insufficient to accomplish necessary multilateral negotiations. To expedite that process, this final rule clarifies that the United States will attempt to submit any proposals for 0Y521 items to therelevant multilateral regime for consideration of multilateral controls during the initial one-year 0Y521 classification period or will determine whether a different ECCN or EAR99 designation might be more appropriate. In addition, consistent with the July 15 proposed rule, this final rule generally limits extension to two additional one-year periods, and such extensions may only be made provided that the U.S. Government submitted a proposal to obtain multilateral controls over the item. However, recognizing,inter alia,that there may be a need for additional time for the U.S. Government and its multilateral regime partners to review and discuss appropriate controls, this final rule allows for additional extensions. The Under Secretary for Industry and Security may further extend an ECCN 0Y521 control upon a determination that such extension is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. This change is in keeping with the July 15 proposed rule's anticipation that time extensions may be necessary to achieve multilateral controls. All extension and re-extensions, including the determination by the Under Secretary for Industry and Security, will be published in theFederal Register.

In addition, the case-by-case license review policy for ECCN 0Y521 items will provide discretion to the U.S. Government to approve many exports and reexports potentially affected by ECCN 0Y521 classification.

Comment 3:Commenters cautioned that: classification should not be overused; when used, the classification process should not be hindered or protracted; and the classification process should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Commenters further expressed concern that because they believed that USML Category XXI, which the ECCN 0Y521 entries are designed to parallel, is “vague and worrisome,” the ECCN 0Y521 process will suffer from the same problems.

Response:Although BIS cannot predict how often items will be classified in ECCN 0Y521 entries, BIS will use this classification only when the item has significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or foreign policy considerations warrant its use. Given the breadth and scope of the USML and the CCL, BIS does not anticipate that a large number of now EAR99 items will be listed on the CCL under ECCN 0Y521. The ECCN 0Y521 series is a mechanism to impose license requirements when needed within a transparent process and with stated parameters of when an item would transition out of temporary ECCN 0Y521 classification. Each item's ECCN 0Y521 classification will expire one year from the date of its initial ECCN 0Y521 classification, unless specifically extended. As noted in response to the previous comment, for items whose ECCN 0Y521 status is extended, such extension is limited to two one-year periods, unless the Under Secretary for Industry and Security makes a determination that it is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States to further extend the temporary ECCN 0Y521 controls. For additional discussion on how ECCN 0Y521 items will be identified and the classification process initiated, see BIS's response to Comment 4.

With respect to concerns that the USML Category XXI process is, and the ECCN 0Y521 process will be, “vague and worrisome,” the ECCN 0Y521-related provisions have been drafted to create as much transparency for the public as possible. This final rule clarifies that the U.S. Government will attempt to submit any proposals for items classified under ECCN 0Y521 during the one-year classification period or will determine whether a different ECCN or EAR99 designation might be more appropriate. In addition, with this final rule, BIS has made efforts to clarify that an extension of 0Y521 classification may only occur for a second or third year, provided that the U.S. Government has already submitted a proposal to obtain multilateral controls over the item. Moreover, just as the State Department continues to improve the substance and processes of export controls under the ITAR, BIS intends to continue making the EAR increasingly effective, and welcomes public comments on an ongoing basis.

Comment 4:A commenter noted that BIS did not clearly explain whether exporters have an affirmative requirement to seek a formal determination regarding whether an item not listed on the CCL should be subject to ECCN 0Y521 control. Related to that point, some commenters seemed unsure about how the ECCN 0Y521 items would be identified and the classification process initiated. One commenter recommended that BIS add a new ECCN entry for the item if enough information about the item is known, instead of classifying the item under an ECCN 0Y521 entry.

Response:Neither the July 15 proposed rule nor this final rule require exporters or reexporters to seek a determination from the U.S. Government as to whether an item that is not identified on the CCL should be classified as an ECCN 0Y521 item. If an item that is subject to the EAR is not described in an ECCN on the CCL, including in an existing ECCN 0Y521 entry, the item is an EAR99 item. As noted in the July 15 rule, ECCN 0Y521 controls only become applicable once a final rule is published in theFederal Registeradding a description of such an item to Supplement No. 5 to part 774.

With regard to identifying new items to classify under ECCN 0Y521 entries, the U.S. Government is responsible for identifying such items. Specifically, BIS, with the concurrence of the Departments of Defense and State, will identify and classify items that warrant control under 0Y521 ECCNs. BIS also relies on input received from its Technical Advisory Committees (TACs). As BIS drafts final rules to add additional items to an ECCN 0Y521 classification, such rules will be reviewed by the TACs, which will provide BIS an opportunity to receive industry input on whether the items in question, including emerging technologies, warrant control as an ECCN 0Y521 item.

Finally, in response to the comment that a new ECCN entry specific to an item at issue be added to the CCL if sufficient information is known about the item, rather than temporarily classifying it as ECCN 0Y521, BIS believes for several reasons that use of ECCN 0Y521 will better serve the purpose of identifying and ultimately classifying emerging technologies and other items that may warrant control. ECCN 0Y521 advances the effort to streamline the CCL and simplify export and reexport provisions, which are primary goals of the Administration's ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative. Adding new ECCNs for each new item would mean expanding the number of distinct ECCN entries on the CCL, contrary to the goals of Export Control Reform Initiative. The standard heading on the CCL for each ECCN 0Y521 entry, listed by product group, immediately provides temporary classifications for items that warrant control. Supplement No. 5 to part 774 describes the actual items under the ECCN 0Y521 series and allows the public to more easily access information about the 0Y521 items, i.e., the date of initial classification or subsequent BIS classification of the item. Finally, because the information is concentrated in Supplement No. 5, there are no unnecessary amendments to the CCL.

Comment 5:A commenter suggested that the phrase “or for foreign policy reasons” be removed from the 0Y521 entry headings.

Response:BIS believes the commenter's point was that items should not be added to the 0Y521 ECCNseries for solely “foreign policy” reasons. BIS disagrees. An ECCN 0Y521 item that has significant military or intelligence advantage may warrant worldwide or widespread controls. By including controls for foreign policy reasons from the outset, BIS facilitates a broader basis for control of ECCN 0Y521 items because such controls include both multilateral and unilateral designations. Although the U.S. Government would most likely work to obtain multilateral status for items classified under the ECCN 0Y521 series, while the items are classified under ECCN 0Y521, they will be subject to unilateral foreign policy-based control (RS1) to secure control of the items in a timely manner and thereby avoid an EAR99 designation. At this point and with this final rule, items placed under 0Y521 ECCNs are controlled for RS1 reasons.

Comment 6:Commenters recommended that BIS revise the heading for the entry of a 0Y521 ECCN to name the particular group instead of using the term “item.”

Response:BIS agrees. After reviewing comments indicating that it would help public understanding of the ECCN 0Y521 provisions if product group-specific terminology were used for each of the respective 0Y521 ECCNs (i.e., using “commodity” in 0A521 and 0B521, material in 0C521, “software” in 0D521 and “technology” in 0E521) rather than “item,” as was proposed in the July 15 rule, BIS accepted this suggested change, which is included in the headings for ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521 included in this final rule.

Comment 7:A commenter suggested that ECCN 0Y521 items be listed in ECCN 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521 entries instead of in the proposed Supplement No. 5 to part 774 (Items Classified Under ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521).

Response:As discussed in the Response to Comment 4, in evaluating how to structure the ECCN 0Y521 entries, BIS and the other agencies participating in the Export Control Reform Initiative determined that the Supplement No. 5 approach was a better alternative to adding individual ECCNs to the CCL. Listing the items under the respective entries would require adding 0Y521 ECCNs to each of the ten CCL categories. This would mean instead of adding five ECCN 0Y521 entries in the CCL, fifty ECCNs would be added to the CCL to account for all of the potential future 0Y521 items. The CCL currently contains approximately 500 ECCNs, so this alternative approach would have increased by 10 percent the overall number of ECCNs on the CCL. While BIS cannot affirmatively state how often items will be classified under ECCN 0Y521, the number of items that will likely warrant control under ECCN 0Y521 would not justify such a large expansion of ECCN entries. Additionally, the table format contained in the new Supplement No. 5 to part 774 has a structure that BIS believes makes it easy for the public to identify when an item was originally classified as an ECCN 0Y521 item and when that classification will no longer apply.

Comment 8:A commenter asserted that listing particular ECCN 0Y521 items in the respective ECCNs would permit deletion of proposed Supplement No. 5 to part 774.

Response:As noted above, BIS evaluated this option in developing the proposed Supplement No. 5 to part 774 included in the July 15 rule, along with the other related ECCN 0Y521 provisions. BIS agrees with the commenter that if that change were accepted that the supplement could be eliminated. However, for the reasons noted above in response to Comment 7, BIS decided against adopting such an approach.

Comment 9:With respect to the proposed ECCN 0Y521 heading stating that an item may be classified in a ECCN 0Y521 entry because it provides “at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States,” a commenter described the use of the term “advantage” as too subjective and added that the term sets a higher bar than the term “advance” to determine whether items would be classified under 0Y521 ECCNs.

Response:BIS agrees there is some degree of interpretation required in applying the standard “significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States,” but does not agree that a more expansive term such as “advance” would be appropriate. BIS's intent is to create a fairly high threshold for an item to warrant control in the ECCN 0Y521 series, and for that reason the term advantage is appropriate. Ultimately, it is the U.S. Government that will determine whether the criteria for classifying an item under a 0Y521 ECCN have been met, but BIS's intent is to limit ECCN 0Y521 classification to those items that truly warrant the temporary classification.

Comment 10:A commenter expressed confusion about the purpose and scope of the proposed ECCN 0Y521 series in relation to the items that would be listed in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. That commenter recommended that BIS edit or expand proposed § 742.6(a)(7) (RS Column 1 license requirements and related policies for `0Y521') to clarify that the list of items determined to be classified under ECCN 0Y521 is limited to those proposed to be enumerated in Supplement No. 5 to part 774.

Response:As noted above, only those items listed in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 are classified under ECCN 0Y521 on the CCL. To make this explicit, BIS is revising paragraph (a)(7) as suggested in the comment.

Comment 11:A commenter stated that § 742.6(a)(7) (RS Column 1 license requirements and related policies for `0Y521') should be revised to clarify that it is consistent with the foreign availability provisions in Section 4(c) of the Export Administration Act (EAA), 50 U.S.C. app. § 2403(c) (2000), regarding the imposition of unilateral controls.

Response:BIS intends that classifications of the ECCN 0Y521 items will be consistent with the foreign availability provisions of the EAA. Accordingly, no changes are necessary to the rule at this time.

Comment 12:A commenter stated that license exception eligibility should be added to conform with ITAR exemptions available for items in parallel ITAR Category XXI.

Response:In the July 15 proposed rule, BIS proposed that items classified under the ECCN 0Y521 series would be eligible only for License Exception GOV (§ 740.11(b)(2)(ii)). After reviewing the public comments, BIS has determined that additional license exception eligibility may be warranted for certain items that may be classified under ECCN 0Y521, but this additional license exception eligibility should be determined at the time an item is added to Supplement No. 5 to part 774 of the EAR. As such, BIS is revising the language of Section 740.2(a)(14) (Restrictions on all License Exceptions) and adding a clarifying note to that paragraph, as described above.

In terms of a parallel to the ITAR, as items falling under the ECCN 0Y521 series will not be defense articles being moved from the USML to the CCL, an ITAR parallel is unnecessary. The ECCN 0Y521 series is not part of the proposed “600 series,” informally known as the Commerce Munitions List inside the larger CCL.

Finally, in terms of adding license exception authorizations, BIS is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the ITAR exemptions to determine if the EAR should be revised to add anyexceptions available in the ITAR for defense articles. This review is ongoing, and any changes would be published in separate rulemaking notices.

Comment 13:One commenter encouraged BIS to contact exporters before adding any new ECCN 0Y521 item to the CCL. According to the commenter, consulting with companies or the industry that created the technology in question or that have the greatest expertise about the technology would ensure that accurate information is considered before an item is classified under an 0Y521 ECCN. Similarly, one commenter stated that 0Y521 ECCN classifications should be appealable.

Response:BIS understands the rationale behind these comments. However, BIS is unable to implement the suggestion for a number of reasons. First, in terms of fairness and regulatory rulemaking requirements, if BIS were to contact and notify select companies or individuals in drafting a new control without providing the same opportunity to the entire public, one group of interested persons may be disadvantaged over another. This result would be unfair and inconsistent with the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. However, as explained in response to a previous comment, BIS, as a matter of practice, consults with the TACs as final rules are drafted to classify items under 0Y521 ECCNs. The rule also does not prohibit any party from sending information to BIS about the item or comments about a control that was imposed on it. Also as noted above, such rules classifying items under ECCN 0Y521 would not be published as proposed rules because of the harm that would likely be done to U.S. national security interests if exporters and reexporters were given advance notice of future licensing requirements for items such as emerging technologies that warranted controls.

Regarding the appealability of ECCN 0Y521 classifications, as noted in the preamble of the July 15 proposed rule, the United States Government's decision to identify an item as classified under an 0Y521 ECCN is based on whether the item has significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or a foreign policy reason, not a technical classification. Under § 756.1(a)(1), listing items in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 would be excluded from the part 756 appeals process. However, as stated in § 756.1(a)(1), the EAR provides that the public may submit a request to amend, revoke, or appeal a regulation at any time. As such, the public has an opportunity to provide input to BIS as soon as an ECCN 0Y521 classification is made. Given the limited duration that an item is likely to be classified under an 0Y521 ECCN, and the fact that BIS cannot classify items under an 0Y521 ECCN without the consensus of the Departments of State and Defense, the public may find it more useful to focus any comments after a regulation identifies a new item in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 on how an ECCN 0Y521 item should be permanently classified on the CCL.

Comment 14:A commenter stated that it would be appropriate to impose RS1 controls on ECCN 0Y521 items, provided that RS1 controls apply only to “600 series” items not yet controlled by multilateral agreement. However, the commenter added, subsequent relocation on the CCL for such items, if and when multilateral agreement is reached on how the ECCN 0Y521 items should be controlled permanently, should be made effective in a timely fashion to reduce unwarranted licensing burdens.

Response:As noted above, the ECCN 0Y521 series is not part of the “600 series,” which was initially proposed in the July 15 proposed rule. As such, reasons to control items classified under ECCN 0Y521 entries are not related to reasons to control proposed “600 series” items. ECCN 0Y521 classifications are temporary; if a permanent classification for an ECCN 0Y521 item is identified, the ECCN 0Y521 item would be re-classified under an existing, but revised, ECCN or a new ECCN and would thus no longer be subject to ECCN 0Y521 controls. Any ECCN 0Y521 items that are later added to multilateral control lists would be re-classified at the time a final rule is published implementing that change to the multilateral regime's control list by adding the items to the CCL. Alternatively, ECCN 0Y521 controls may expire if an extension or re-classification does not occur before the date identified for the items in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 entry, at which point the item would return to being an EAR99 item. An item's ECCN 0Y521 classification may be extended for two one-year periods, the requirements for which are described in BIS's response to Comment 2. Further extension may occur only if the Under Secretary for Industry and Security makes a determination that an extension is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Any extension or re-extension of an ECCN 0Y521 item will be published in theFederal Register.

Comment 15:Another commenter recognized the usefulness of a 0Y521 ECCN series and appreciates the careful consideration of how items should move out of the 0Y521 ECCN classification and into positive existing ECCNs or EAR99 designation in a consistent and timely fashion. However, the commenter also expressed concern with the proposal to include emerging technologies in the 0Y521 series of ECCNs, given the potential to capture technologies that are the product of university fundamental research activity. The commenter suggests that BIS clarify and open to the public prior to publication in a final rule the criteria for including items and technologies in the new 0Y521 ECCNs.

Response:Items classified in 0Y521 ECCNs by definition would only be items subject to the EAR. If an item were not subject to the EAR—such as technology that arises during, or results from, fundamental research, as described in § 734.8 of the EAR—then it would not be subject to the EAR. BIS will have the authority to control items under 0Y521 ECCNs if (i) they are not already controlled on the CCL or the USML and (ii) BIS determines that they provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or there is a foreign policy reason for controlling the item. Emerging technologies of concern that are subject to the EAR are likely to be items whose technological innovation outpaces existing CCL or USML controls. The CCL is constructed as a positive control list, so if an item is subject to the EAR, but not identified in an ECCN, the USML, or the controls of another government agency such as the Department of Energy, it is an EAR99 item. The 0Y521 ECCNs are intended to provide BIS the authority to impose quickly a license requirement on otherwise uncontrolled items in a transparent way for a limited period. During that period, BIS and its interagency partners will work with the relevant multilateral export control regime(s) to determine what, if any, more lasting controls are appropriate for the item. Items that the U.S. Government determines are more appropriately captured under the United States Munitions List (USML) Category XXI (Miscellaneous Articles) or other USML control, which are identified as part of the 0Y521 review will be controlled as such.

Comment 16:One commenter recommended that BIS consult with the appropriate TACs on the process to determine descriptions for Supplement No. 5 to part 774.

Response:As noted above, BIS plans to consult with the TACs to identify the appropriate descriptions to be added to Supplement No. 5 to part 774 for ECCN 0Y521 items.

Comment 17:A commenter observed that identification of software and technology based on its model or a broader descriptor may present situations in which descriptions will need to be performance-based.

Response:The CCL has many software and technology ECCNs classified under product groups D and E. Although the item descriptor column in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 will be in a table format, the expertise BIS has in describing software and technology in other parts of the CCL will be relied on to ensure objective identification of software and technology in this Supplement. Other ECCNs on the CCL have identified items by model number, such as the QRS11-00100-100/101 and QRS11-00050-443569 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors classified under ECCN 7A994.

Comment 18:A commenter asked what BIS anticipates will be the potential risk to industry of positively and publicly identifying items via Supplement No. 5 to part 774.

Response:Supplement No. 5 to part 774 will not disclose any proprietary information regarding the items classified therein. In addition, in most cases BIS will seek, with the assistance of the TACs, to identify items by a broader descriptor that need not be company specific.

Comment 19:One commenter disagrees with using a model number or a broader descriptor that is not necessarily company-specific for the ECCN 0Y521 items. The commenter adds that common nomenclatures and standards are used across industries, which might result in an overly generic and therefore confusing descriptor. Yet, in trying to avoid confusion, the commenter believes BIS still would need to avoid publishing company proprietary information.

Response:As noted in the BIS Response to Comment 18, the identification of an item in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 will not disclose any proprietary information regarding the item. BIS will seek, with the input of the TACs, to specifically enumerate the ECCN 0Y521 items as “positively” as possible. Also as noted above, where possible, BIS will seek to identify items by general descriptors, but these descriptors will need to be objective and avoid the potential pitfalls identified in this comment. This concern is not specific to Supplement No. 5, and is an issue that BIS and the multilateral export control regimes confront whenever a control parameter is written. BIS is confident that general descriptors can be developed and where a model number needs to be used, such as is the case in ECCN 7A994, that such descriptors will adequately define ECCN 0Y521 items.

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

This action is taken after consultation with the Secretary of State. BIS submitted a foreign policy report to the Congress indicating the imposition of new foreign policy controls on March 26, 2012.

The ECCN 0Y521 proposal set forth in the July 15 proposed rule is mainly unchanged in this final rule. However, in response to public comments, BIS has changed its approach to the circumstances and length of time an item may be controlled under ECCN 0Y521 and the availability of license exceptions for items classified under 0Y521 ECCNs. BIS has also made conforming changes to the EAR to clarify the ECCN 0Y521 series.

In the July 15 proposed rule, BIS proposed a mechanism for situations in which an item that warrants control is not controlled yet. The July 15 proposed rule proposed a three-year maximum control period for ECCN 0Y521 items, during which the initial one-year period would only be extended if the Departments of Commerce, State and Defense made a consensus determination to seek multilateral controls for the ECCN 0Y521 item and the U.S. Government submitted a proposal to obtain multilateral controls over the item. This final rule clarifies that the Departments of Commerce, State and Defense will decide whether to seek multilateral controls at the same time that the agencies consider classifying the item as an ECCN 0Y521 item. Consistent with the July 15 preamble, a second or third-year extension would still require that the United States has submitted a proposal for multilateral control for the ECCN 0Y521 item to the relevant multilateral regime. While the requirement to submit a proposal for extension for one or more one-year periods was identified in the preamble to the July 15 proposed rule, with this final rule, BIS has incorporated into revised Section 742.6(a)(7)(iii) the circumstances in which an item's ECCN 0Y521 classification may be extended for a second or third year.

In contrast to the proposed rule, this final rule also establishes the potential for further extension of ECCN 0Y521 controls beyond three years for a specific item if the Under Secretary for Industry and Security makes a determination that such extension is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Any extension or re-extension, including a determination by the Under Secretary for Industry and Security will be published in theFederal Register. As discussed in the “Comments and Response” section above, allowing for potential additional extensions is necessary to provide sufficient time for BIS and its interagency partners to work with the relevant multilateral export control regime(s) to determine what, if any, controls are appropriate for the item. Regulatory provisions related to this extension are set forth in revised § 742.6(a)(7)(iii).

Although License Exception GOV, set forth in § 740.11(b)(2)(ii), remains the only license exception identified at this time for all items classified in ECCN 0Y521, in contrast to the July 15 proposed rule, this final rule establishes the potential availability of additional license exceptions on an item-specific basis. To implement this change, in this final rule BIS adds a fourth column identified as “Item-specific License Exceptions” to Supplement No. 5 to part 774. To conform with that change, BIS also includes in this final rule a revision to § 740.2(a)(14) that differs from the proposed rule. In the July 15 proposed rule, that paragraph stated a restriction on all license exceptions for items designated as 0Y521, except for License Exception GOV (§ 740.11(b)(ii)). In this final rule, paragraph (a)(14) specifies that the only license exceptions that may be used to authorize items designated as 0Y521 are GOV (§ 740.11(b)(2)(ii)) or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 for a particular ECCN 0Y521 item. This final rule also adds a new Note to paragraph (a)(14) of § 740.2 to indicate that license exception availability is specific to each ECCN 0Y521 entry in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 and may not be used for any other ECCN 0Y521 entries in the supplement. At the time the U.S.Government makes a determination that items are classified under ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 or 0E521, the U.S. Government will specify whether any license exceptions in addition to License Exception GOV will be available. BIS also amends ECCN 0Y521 control entry text appearing in Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR to reflect that other license exceptions may be eligible for particular items. If there are additional license exceptions, they will be listed in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 under each designated item. In a corresponding change, to provide guidance about the applicability of licensing exceptions, BIS also adds paragraph (a)(14) and a note to paragraph (a)(14) to § 740.2.

BIS incorporated a recommendation to use product group-specific terminology for each of the respective 0Y521 ECCNs (i.e., using the term “commodity” in 0A521 and 0B521, material in 0C521 (as defined in the July 15 proposed rule), “software” in 0D521 and “technology” in 0E521), rather than “item,” as was proposed in the July 15 rule. The change has been made to the headings for ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521 in this final rule.

Finally, to correspond with establishing the ECCN 0Y521 provisions, BIS is making other changes that are necessary to provide guidance to the public about these provisions, the applicability of licensing exceptions, and to make locating those provisions easier. To identify the 0Y521 ECCN series as within the scope of the EAR and primary provisions for the series, BIS amends: § 732.3 (Steps regarding the ten general prohibitions) by adding paragraph (b)(4); § 734.3 (Items Subject to the EAR) by revising paragraph (c); § 738.1(a) (Introduction—Commerce Control List Scope) by adding paragraph (a)(3); and § 774.1 by adding a new paragraph to the Introduction.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute 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 been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule affects two approved collections: (1) The Simplified Network Application Processing + System (control number 0694-0088), which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8 minutes, including the time necessary to submit license applications, among other things, as well as miscellaneous and other recordkeeping activities that account for 12 minutes per submission. BIS does not believe that this rule will materially increase the number of submissions under this collection. (2) License Exceptions and Exclusions (0694-0137). BIS cannot at this point describe or estimate the items that may be classified under the new 0Y521 ECCN series.

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

4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for that certification was published in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. BIS received no comments regarding the certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

5. BIS finds good cause to waive the requirement of 5 U.S.C.(d)(3) that this rule's effectiveness be delayed 30 days from its publication in theFederal Register. Delaying the rule's effectiveness for 30 days is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The delay is unnecessary because the rule is non-substantive and has no external impact. The agency is essentially inserting an empty box to be filled as items warranting export control under the CCL are identified. The rule adds no new requirements or burdens on the public, which need not take any action as a result of this rule to comply with its terms. In addition, a delay in effectiveness is contrary to the public interest, because additional delay would prevent the identification and addition of items to the CCL, which in turn could inhibit the public's ability to obtain export licenses for these items and potentially require the public to seek licenses under the USML licensing process during the period of delay. This rule, therefore, is effective upon publication in theFederal Register.

Accordingly, parts 732. 734, 738, 740, 742 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).1 The Dodd-Frank Act substantially changed the federal legal framework for financial services providers. Among the changes, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB the Commission's rulemaking authority under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),2 section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”),3 section 626 of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act,4 and portions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act(“FCRA”) (collectively, “the Acts”),5 on July 21, 2011.6

As a result, the Commission is rescinding the following nine rules issued under the Acts, which have been republished by the CFPB:

• Disclosure Requirements for Depository Institutions Lacking Federal Deposit Insurance, 16 CFR Part 320 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR part 1009);

• Mortgage Acts and Practices—Advertising Rule, 16 CFR part 321 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR part 1014);

• Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, 16 CFR part 322 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR part 1015);

• [Identity Theft] Definitions, 16 CFR Part 603 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.3);

• Free Annual File Disclosures Rule, 16 CFR Part 610 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.130);

• Prohibition Against Circumventing Treatment as a Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency, 16 CFR Part 611 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.140);

• Duration of Active Duty Alerts, 16 CFR part 613 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.121);

• Appropriate Proof of Identity, 16 CFR part 614 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.123); and

• Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the Provisions of the [Fair Debt Collection Practices] Act, 16 CFR part 901 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR part 1006).

The FTC will retain rulemaking authority for other rules promulgated under the Acts to the extent the rules apply to motor vehicle dealers described in section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.8 These seven rules are:

• Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Privacy Rule, 16 CFR part 313;

• Duties of Creditors Regarding Risk-Based Pricing, 16 CFR part 640;

• Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address Discrepancies, 16 CFR part 641;

• Prescreen Opt-Out Notice, 16 CFR part 642;

• Duties of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies, 16 CFR part 660;

• Affiliate Marketing, 16 CFR part 680; and

• Model Forms and Disclosures, 16 CFR part 698.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC also retains its authority to bring law enforcement actions to enforce the Acts and FTC and CFPB rules issued under the Acts.

The FCRA governs the collection, assembly, and use of consumer report information and provides the framework for the credit reporting system in the United States.10 Since enactment of the FCRA in 1970, the FTC has played a key role in its implementation, oversight, enforcement, and interpretation.

On July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB most of the Commission's rulemaking authority under the FCRA.11 As a result, the Commission is rescinding the rules discussed below, which the CFPB republished on an interim final basis on December 21, 2011. The republished rules became effective on December 30, 2011.12

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACT Act”) amended the FCRA and included requirements for consumer reporting agencies, creditors, and others to help remedy identity theft. The FTC issued final rules to define the terms “identity theft” and “identity theft report.”13

The FACT Act required consumer reporting agencies to provide consumers with one free copy of their file disclosure annually. (These free annual file disclosures are commonly known as “free credit reports.”) As required by the FACT Act, the FTC issued a rule requiring the establishment of a centralized source through which consumers may request these free annual file disclosures from each nationwide consumer reporting agency; a standardized form for such requests; and a streamlined process for consumers to request free annual file disclosures from nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies.14 Pursuant to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (“Credit CARD Act”),15 the FTC amended the rule to require that certain advertisements for “free credit reports” include prominent disclosures, and to prohibit other practices that may interfere with the free annual file disclosure process.16

The FCRA imposes certain specific requirements on “nationwide consumer reporting agencies.” As required by the FACT Act, the FTC promulgated an interim final rule prohibiting consumer reporting agencies from avoiding treatment as nationwide consumer reporting agencies through any means, including corporate structuring or technological methods.17

Active Duty Alerts help service members who are deployed and may find it difficult to monitor their financial accounts. These service members can place alerts on their credit reports, which require that users of suchreports have reasonable policies and procedures to verify the identity of the person requesting credit. As required by the FACT Act, the FTC issued a final rule establishing that the duration of active duty alerts shall be twelve months.18

As required by the FACT Act, the FTC established requirements for what constitutes appropriate proof of identity for purposes of who can place fraud or active duty alerts or request truncation of social security numbers on credit reports.19 The rule helps to ensure that identity thieves cannot easily access another person's credit report.

Section 626 of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act,20 as clarified by the Credit CARD Act,21 directed the Commission to initiate rulemakings with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving mortgage loans. To implement the Act, the Commission issued two rules on mortgage loan practices: the Mortgage Acts and Practices-Advertising (“MAP-Ad”) Rule and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (“MARS”) Rule.

Because the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB the Commission's rulemaking authority under Section 626, the Commission is rescinding its MAP-Ad and MARS rules. The CFPB republished these rules on an interim final basis on December 16, 2011. The republished rules became effective on December 30, 2011.22

The MAP-Ad Rule prohibits deceptive marketing of mortgage loans.23

The MARS Rule addresses the practices of entities (other than mortgage servicers) who offer assistance to consumers in dealing with owners or servicers of their loans to modify them or avoid foreclosure.24 The rule bans providers of mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they decide is acceptable. The rule also requires mortgage relief companies to disclose key information to consumers to protect them from being misled and to help them make better informed purchasing decisions. In addition, the rule prohibits mortgage relief companies from making false or misleading claims about their services.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”) added a new section 43 (12 U.S.C. 1831t) to the FDIA, which directed the Commission to prescribe disclosures for depository institutions that lack federal deposit insurance.25 Under Section 43, the Commission issued a rule requiring covered institutions to include a disclosure about the lack of federal deposit insurance on periodic statements and account records.26 In addition, the rule requires most advertising for these institutions to include disclosures about the lack of federal insurance. The covered institutions also must obtain signed acknowledgments from new depositors about the fact that the institution is not federally insured.

The Dodd-Frank Act transferred the Commission's rulemaking authority under the FDIA to the CFPB. As a result, the Commission is rescinding its Disclosure Requirements for Depository Institutions Lacking Federal Deposit Insurance, which the CFPB republished on an interim final basis on December 16, 2011. The republished rules became effective on December 30, 2011.27

The FDCPA provided the Commission with rulemaking authority to promulgate procedures for granting states exemptions from the FDCPA.28 Pursuant to Section 817 of the FDCPA, the Commission promulgated Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the Provisions of the [Fair Debt Collection Practices] Act (“Procedures”).29

Under the Procedures, any state may apply to the Commission for a determination that debt collection practices within the state are subject to requirements under the laws of the state that are substantially similar to, or provide greater protection for consumers than, those imposed under sections 803 through 812 of the FDCPA, and that there is adequate provision for state enforcement of those requirements.30 If the Commission determines that a state has met these criteria, the Commission must exempt the class of debt collection practices in that state from the requirements of sections 803 through 812.31

Because the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB the Commission's authority under the FDCPA to grant exemptions by regulation, the Commission is rescinding its Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the Provisions of the [Fair Debt Collection Practices] Act. The CFPB republished rules governing these procedures on an interim final basis on December 16, 2011. The republished rules became effective on December 30, 2011.32

Under the Administrative Procedure Act,33 an agency may promulgate or rescind a rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment if the agency finds for good cause that notice and comment are unnecessary.34 Public comment on the rescission of these rules is unnecessary because the FTC's rulemaking authority has transferred to the CFPB pursuant to the statutory mandate of the Dodd-Frank Act. Thus, the FTC has no discretion to maintain these rules, and there is no reason for public comment on this regulatory action. The CFPB's regulations went into effect on December 30, 2011. Therefore, rescission of the FTC rules will help avoid confusion as to which rules are now in effect. Accordingly, the Commission finds that public notice and comment is unnecessary.

In addition, the Commission has determined that the rescissions may take effect immediately upon publication of this notice in theFederal Register, as permitted by the Administrative Procedure Act.35 The removal of the regulations is exempt from the usual 30-day notice requirement as it merely “relieves arestriction” from FTC requirements.36 The 30-day notice requirement does not apply under these circumstances, in which the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority to issue these rules to the CFPB as of the designated transfer date. Therefore, affected persons do not need time to prepare for or take any action with regard to the rescission.37

The Free Annual File Disclosures Rule and the mortgage rules contain information requirements that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).38 Because the FTC and CFPB share enforcement authority for these rules, the CFPB has assumed half of the FTC's previously cleared burden estimates for these rules and OMB has approved the CFPB's request for emergency clearance. In turn, the FTC has submitted associated adjustment requests to OMB to reduce by half the FTC's previously cleared estimates under the PRA assigned to these rules.

Because the Commission has determined that it may remove these regulations without public comment, the Commission is also not required to publish any initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as part of such action.39

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Commission amends Chapter I of Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Since this rule is not controversial and primarily concerns agency procedures, we have determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for a direct final rule. No significant adverse comments are anticipated. However, concurrent with this direct final rule, a separate, identical proposed rule is published in today's issue of theFederal Register. The duplicate proposed rule will expedite rulemaking in the event we receive significant adverse comments and we withdraw this direct final rule. All interested parties should comment at this time because we will not initiate an additional comment period. If no significant adverse comments to the accompanying proposed rule are received on or before June 12, 2012, this direct final rule will become effective July 12, 2012 without further notice.

If significant adverse comments are received, we will publish a timely notice in theFederal Registerwithdrawing this direct final rule, and will then proceed with the rulemaking by addressing the comments and developing a final rule from the proposed rule published elsewhere in today's issue of theFederal Register. For purposes of withdrawing this direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains (1) why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a significant adverse commentnecessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response through the notice and comment process. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this rule would be ineffective without the addition.

The FTCA surrenders the sovereign immunity of the United States for the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a Government employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. The MPCECA authorizes payment of claims of employees of the Government for loss of, or damage to, property incident to Government service. The WIA provides that Job Corps students are Federal employees for purposes of claims under the FTCA and authorizes payment of claims arising out of the operation of the Job Corps that are not cognizable under the FTCA. Parts 638 and 670 of title 20 and part 15 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations currently contain regulations implementing these three claims authorities.

The regulations reflect statutory changes and are otherwise largely unchanged. The majority of changes were made to change the format of 29 CFR part 15 to question and answer format, and to improve the structure and readability of the regulations in both 20 CFR part 670 and 29 CFR part 15. Furthermore, the numbering of sections in 29 CFR part 15 was changed to improve structure and to allow for splitting of current sections for improved clarity and readability.

As the changes made to 20 CFR part 670 and 29 CFR part 15 have rendered these sections unnecessary, the regulations delete these sections.

These sections were changed to direct possible claimants to 29 CFR part 15, which provides the actual regulations that govern such claims. This change was made to reduce the possibility of conflicting regulations and to clarify which regulations provide the decision making authority for such claims.

These sections provide information for Job Corps students regarding their rights under the FECA. These sections were similarly amended to provide cross-references to the regulations governing claims under the FECA, while still providing the statutory information regarding the status of such students under the WIA. Sections no longer necessary as a result were removed.

As discussed above, 29 CFR part 15 was reorganized and the regulations themselves were modified to change to a question and answer format to promote clarity and readability of these regulations. As part of the reorganization, a new subpart A was added to this part, with the other subparts redesignated accordingly.

Subpart A of part 15 is a new subpart. It includes introductory information, such as describing the contents of the other subparts and definitions that apply to all subparts in this part.

Subpart B is largely subpart A of the old regulations. The text in this subpart is largely unchanged, although some of the old regulations have been broken out into new sections in order to promote clarity and use of a question and answer format. Changes in these sections are described below.

Section 15.102 is a new section that describes the filing of a claim by an insurance company and compiles the requirements into one section. The language of this section has also been rewritten for clarity.

Section 15.103 is a new section that addresses legal representatives and compiles them into one section. The statutory limitation on representative fees has also been included for ease of use.

Section 15.104 (formerly § 15.4) has been amended to clarify that the $25,000 jurisdictional limit applies to the aggregate of claims resulting from one incident. Furthermore, this section has been amended to codify the official duty stations' current practice of forwarding the FTCA claims to the Regional Offices of the Office of the Solicitor with the documentation they have regarding that claim.

Section 15.106 (formerly § 15.6) has been amended to include a requirement that all organizational units within the Department appoint an FTCA contact, unless that requirement for a contact is waived. For example, a small entity within the Office of the Secretary for which claims are rarely received would not be required to designate an FTCA contact. This section has also been amended to require the FTCA contact to submit an administrative report to the deciding official within 30 days.

Section 15.108 (formerly § 15.7) has been amended to clarify that the $25,000 jurisdictional limit applies to the aggregate of claims resulting from one incident.

Section 15.111 (formerly § 15.10) has been amended to clarify that the $25,000 jurisdictional limit applies to the aggregate of claims resulting from one incident and to update the forms used by the Department of Justice in settling and paying FTCA claims.

As above, subpart C is largely a redesignated version of former subpart B. The text in this subpart is largely unchanged, although some of the old regulations have been broken out into new sections in order to promote clarity. Changes in these sections are described below.

Section 15.202 (formerly a subsection of § 15.21) has been amended to include a reference to a sample claim for MPCECA claims and to note that the SF-95 form should not be used to file a claim under this subpart. This section has also been amended to allow the deciding official to waive the requirement of submitting two estimates of repair where unnecessary, lessening the burden on claimants in submitting these claims.

Section 15.206 is a new section that covers MPCECA claims made for damage to property at Telework locations and at residences.

Section 15.207 (formerly § 15.22) has been amended to include language allowing claims for loss or damage incident to service to cellular phones, personal data assistants and similar communication and electronic devices.

Section 15.210 has been amended to allow the deciding official to waive the requirement of filing a claim under the employee's insurance policy where such a claim is impracticable or inequitable.

As above, subpart D is largely a redesignated version of former subpart C. This subpart, however, has been reorganized to clearly delineate the types of claims that are covered by this subpart. Changes in these sections are described below.

Section 15.300 is a new section that has been drafted to specifically categorize the types of claims covered by this subpart. This section also clearly indicates that this includes claimsinvolving Job Corps Centers run by other Federal agencies.

Section 15.301 (part of former § 15.42) has been amended to clearly delineate which Department official has responsibility for which type of claim and for what amounts. It more clearly describes and explains the procedures for processing claims of loss or damage to persons or personal property of Job Corps students than the current regulations. In particular, it provides that the Regional Solicitor is responsible for such claims in excess of $300 and the Job Corps Regional Director is responsible for such claims of $300 or less.

Section 15.302 is a new section that has been added to distinguish what procedures apply to the different types of claims covered by this subpart.

Section 15.303 (part of former § 15.42) has been amended to change the process as to where claims under this subpart are initially filed. The new procedures require all claims under the WIA must first be filed with the Job Corps Regional Office.

Section 15.304 combines all prior subsections regarding limits on claims under the WIA into one new section.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866.

The Department has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Accordingly, there is no requirement for an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Department has concluded that the final rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.

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

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321et seq. (NEPA). The Department concludes that NEPA requirements do not apply to this rulemaking because this final rule includes no provisions impacting the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of a healthful environment.

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, 5 U.S.C. 601 note. This final rule was not found to have a potential negative effect on family well-being as it is defined thereunder.

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed regarding environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This final rule was not found to have a potential negative effect on the health or safety of children.

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43225, Aug. 10, 1999, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.,and has found no potential or 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 there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000, and has determined that it does not have “tribal implications.” The final rule does not “have substantial direct effects 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.”

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630, 53 FR 8859, Mar. 15, 1988, and has determined that it does not contain any “policies that have takings implications” in regard to the “licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property.”

The Department has reviewed this final rule and has determined that the provisions of Executive Order 13211, 66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001, are not applicable as there are no direct or implied effects on energy supply, distribution, or use.

Claims filed under these regulations are subject to the current Privacy Act System of Records DOL/SOL-3, Tort Claims Files; DOL/SOL-5,Workforce Investment Act Tort Claims Files; DOL/SOL-6, Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims; and DOL/GOVT-1, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Federal Employees' Compensation Act File. 67 FR 16816, Apr 8, 2002.

Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, Sept. 30, 1993, and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. This final rule was written to improve the clarity of the rule in accordance with that Order.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR parts 638 and 670 and 29 CFR part 15 as follows:

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

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

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for May 2012.1

The May 2012 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for April 2012, these interest assumptions represent an increase of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.

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

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during May 2012, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

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

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

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

The City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department has requested temporary modifications to the operating schedules of the East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) Bridge and the East Las Olas Bridge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Lauderdale Air Show generates a high volume of vessel and vehicle traffic. In past years, opening these bridges has resulted in significant vehicle congestion. By allowing the bridges to remain closed to navigation from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m. during the Lauderdale Air Show, traffic congestion will be reduced.

The details and regular operating schedule for each bridge are set forth below.

1.East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) Bridge, mile 1062.6.The vertical clearance of the East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, is 21 feet. The normal operating schedule for the East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) Bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.261(bb)(6) requires the draw to open on the hour and half-hour. On the first weekend in May, the draw need not open from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and, on the first Saturday in May, the draw need not open from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.

2.East Las Olas Bridge, mile 1064.The vertical clearance of the East Las Olas Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, is 24 feet. The normal operating schedule for the East Last Olas Bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.261(bb)(7) and requires the bridge to open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour. On the first weekend in May, the draw need not open from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and, on the first Saturday in May, the draw need not open from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.

As a result of these temporary deviations, the East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) Bridge and the East Las Olas Bridge will remain closed to navigation from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, April 28, 2012 and Sunday, April 29, 2012. However, the drawspans will open as soon as possible at any time for the passage of public vessels of the United States, vessels in distress, and tugs with tows.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the designated time period. These deviations from the operating regulations are authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on April 22, 2012 to allow the community to participate in the Capitol City Classic run. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 15 minutes advance notice.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

BNSF has requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across Oregon Slough remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate maintenance of the train signaling system. BNSF will be “cutting over” the train signaling system to a new system on April 30, 2012. During this cut-over the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across Oregon Slough will be disabled and the bridge will not be able to be opened. The BNSF Bridge crosses Oregon Slough at mile 3.2 and in accordance to NOAA Chart 18526 provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.887 which requires a half-hour advance notification when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation period is from 8 a.m. on April 30, 2012 through 8 p.m. April 30, 2012. The deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across Oregon Slough, mile 3.2, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. on April 30, 2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR § 117.887 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of Oregon Slough includes vessels ranging from commercial sightseeing vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has requested that the SR 529 Bridge across the Snohomish River and the SR 529 Bridge across Steamboat Slough remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Total Health Events Heros Half Marathon. The Heros Half Marathon is a benefit run for the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. The race course passes over both bridges. The SR 529 Bridge which crosses the Snohomish River at mile 3.6 provides 38 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed position. The SR 529 Bridge which crosses Steamboat Slough at mile 1.1 provides 10 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridges during this closure period. Under normal conditions the SR 529 Bridge crossing the Snohomish River operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(c) which requires advance notification of one-hour when a bridge opening is needed. Under normal conditions the SR 529 Bridge crossing Steamboat Slough operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(g) which requires advance notification of four hours when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation period is from 5 a.m. on April 29, 2012 through 12:01 p.m. April 29, 2012. The deviation allows the SR 529 Bridge crossing the Snohomish River and the SR 529 Bridge crossing Steamboat Slough, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 5 a.m. through 12:01 p.m. on April 29, 2012. The bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1059 at all other times. Waterway usage on the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridges' operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. Both bridges will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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 publishing an NPRM is unnecessary as we previously published an NPRM (see 76 FR 30072) for the annual events listed in 33 CFR 165.929. When the NPRM was made available for comment, there were no objections to these events. This regulation represents the re-scheduling of the following events listed in § 165.929: the Gary Air and Water Show, the Chicago Air and Water Show, and the Milwaukee Air and Water Show. In addition, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from performing its statutory function of protecting life on navigable waters from the hazards associated with air and water shows. Thus, waiting for a notice and commentperiod to run would also be impractical and contrary to the public interest.

The Gary Air and Water Show, the Chicago Air and Water Show, and the Milwaukee Air and Water are held annually on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters within the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Because of their recurring nature, a permanent safety zone with specific enforcement periods has been established for each event in 33 CFR 165.929. The organizers for these events, however, have temporarily rescheduled these events for the summer of 2012.

The Gary Air and Water Show is normally scheduled to occur from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the 2nd weekend of July each year.

This year, however, the event will take place on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the first week of July. The enforcement times this year will be from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, from 2:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Friday, and then from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

The Milwaukee Air and Water show is normally scheduled to occur from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the first Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of each August. This year, however, the event will take place on the second Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of August. The enforcement times will be from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day.

The Chicago Air and Water Show is normally scheduled to occur from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the third Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of August each year. This year, however, the event will take place on the third Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of August. The enforcement times will be from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday through Sunday.

This rule temporarily 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 will temporarily suspend § 165.929 (a)(42), (a)(43), and (a)(64) and temporarily add § 165.929 (a)(76), (a)(77), and (a)(78). The amendments will temporarily modify the enforcement dates and times of the three aforementioned events. These modifications are necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with large scale air and water shows.

The safety zone located at 33 CFR 165.929(a)(42) for the Gary Air and Water Show will be enforced on July 3 and 5, 2012 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m., on July 6, 2012 from 2:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and on July 7-8, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The safety zone located at 33 CFR § 165.929(a)(43) for the Milwaukee Air and Water show will be enforced on August 15, 2012 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. and on August 17-19, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

The safety zone located at 33 CFR § 165.929(a)(64) for the Chicago Air and Water Show will be enforced on August 10-12, 2012 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited without the authority of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public when the zones in this rule will be enforced by all appropriate means, in keeping with 33 CFR 165.7(a). In addition to publishing this rule in theFederal Register, such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to 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 the safety zone established by this section is cancelled.

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 that 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 discussed in this rule will be relatively small and enforced for 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 movement within any particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through a 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 enforcement of these safety zones.

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 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 or 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 enforced for only a few hours within any given 24 hour period and only for a few days. 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.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 6, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, Chicago, Illinois in theFederal Register(77 FR 13232). Although the G8 Summit is now planned to take place at Camp David rather than in Chicago, which is discussed in more detail in the following paragraph, the security zones addressed in the NPRM remain the same. Thus, the Coast Guard views the relocation as having no effect on the comment period. We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Leaders from around the world will gather in Chicago this spring for what was supposed to be two diplomatic summits hosted by President Obama. Since the NPRM that preceded this temporary final rule was published, on March 6, 2012, the G8 summit has been relocated to be held at Camp David. This relocation, however, does not change the Coast Guard security zones for this event. Rather, the NATO Summit remains a highly political event that still demands the four separate security zones that were originally detailed in the NPRM. The NATO Summit, along with certain associated events, will take place in Chicago from May 16, 2012, through May 24, 2012.

Considering the international, economical, and political objectives of NATO along with the high concentration of dignitaries and political figures, the NATO Summit is expected to draw significant domestic and international media interest and also attract a large number of protesters. Consequently, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the implementation of four separate security zones is necessary to ensure the safety and security of those who attend, participate, and visit the NATO Summit and any associated events.

No comments were received regarding this rule. Since the NPRM published back on March 6, 2012, the G8 Summit portion has been relocated to Camp David. The NATO portion still demands the four separate security zone structure that was originally proposed in the NPRM. As discussed above, the Coast Guard views the relocation as having no effect on the comment period. We made no changes to the regulatory text from what we proposed in the NPRM.

To alleviate the safety and security concerns presented by the international, economical, and political implications of NATO; the high concentration of dignitaries and political figures; the expected interest of domestic and international media; and the anticipated presence of protesters; the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that it is necessary to establish four separately enforceable security zones. These zones allow for the closure of four specific areas on and around the waterfront along both Chicago Harbor and the Chicago River.

The four temporary security zones will encompass:

Security Zone A—This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the Burnham park hoist ramp with its center point located in the approximate position 41°51′37″ N, 087°36′44″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

Security Zone B—This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the outer-most tip of the Chicago lock with its center point located in the approximate position 41°53′19″ N, 087°36′17″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

Security Zone C—This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters of the Chicago River between the Western Gate of the Chicago Controlling Works Lock which is located in approximate position 41°53′18″ N, 087°36′28″ W [DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture of the north and south branches of the Chicago River which is located in approximate position 41°53′11″ N, 087°38′15″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

Security Zone D—This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters of the Chicago River between Mile Marker 322.0, which is in the vicinity of the Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip, and Mile Marker 326.4, which is in the vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf. [DATUM: NAD 83].

These security zones will be effective and enforced between 8 a.m. on May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24, 2012.

In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel, regardless of the mode of propulsion, may enter or remain in any one of the security zones established in this temporary rule without first obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan. The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan, at his or her discretion, may permit persons and vessels to enter the security zones established in this temporary rule. The security zones created by this rule do not prohibit members of the public from assembling on shore or expressing from locations on shore their points of view to those attending the NATO Summit.

We developed this temporary 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 temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this temporary 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. Each security zone has been designed to allow as much free transit of vessels as possible while also preserving the security of the NATO Summit. Thus, vessels may still transit portions of the affected waterways not implicated by the security zones. Also, under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through a security zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. Moreover, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, retains the discretion to suspend enforcement of any or all these security zones when he deems necessary. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these security zones

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this temporary 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 temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels, regardless of the mode of propulsion, intending to transit or anchor in the security zones established in this rule. These security zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the aboveRegulatory Planning and Reviewsection.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this temporary rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7188. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or object to this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this temporary rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

We have analyzed this temporary rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this temporary rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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. This temporary rule involves the establishment of security zones and therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis check list supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

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

On February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5207), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR proposed approval of the Delaware SIP revision that amends section 8.0, “Handling, Storage, and Disposal of Volatile Organic Compounds,” section 13.0, “Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Coating Operations,” section 16.0, “Paper Coating,” section 23.0, “Coating of Flat Wood Paneling,” section 37.0, “Graphic Art Systems,” and section 45.0, “Industrial Cleaning Solvents,” to reflect technology developments and expand VOC emission controls. The revision is part of Delaware's strategy to achieve and maintain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) throughout the State. EPA received no comments on the NPR to approve Delaware's SIP revision. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the State of Delaware on June 20, 2011.

The SIP revision consists of the following: (1) Amendments to section 8.0—Handling, Storage, and Disposal of Volatile Organic Compounds, in order to add definitions, update the existing work practice standards, and add an applicable cleaning solvent VOC content limit; (2) amendments to section 13.0—Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Coating Operations, in order to establish VOC limits in coating materials used in automobile and light-duty truck coating operations; (3) amendments to section 16.0—Paper Coating, in order to expand the regulated scope and add “film and foil coating” to the regulated category; (4) amendments to section 23.0—Coating of Flat Wood Paneling, in order to add tileboard panels and exterior sidings to the flat wood paneling product category and establish VOC emission limits, as well as establish more stringent emission limits to previously existing flat wood paneling products; (5) amendments to section 37.0—Graphic Arts Systems, in order to establish provisions for flexible packaging printing presses to the regulated category and establish efficiency requirements for control systems to be installed on the flexible packaging printing presses; and (6) amendments to section 45.0—Industrial Cleaning Solvents, in order to update the applicability for the industrial use of organic cleaning solvents and clarify that the requirements of section 45.0 are triggered based on a limit of VOC emissions rather than cleaning solvent used. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

EPA is approving the control of VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents facilities; automobile and light-duty truck coating operations; paper, film, and foil coating units; flat wood paneling products; and flexible packaging printing presses (7 DE Admin Code 1124, sections 8.0, 13.0, 16.0, 23.0, 37.0, and 45.0) as a revision to the Delaware SIP. This SIP revision meets the requirements to implement RACT controls on emission sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 12, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action approving Delaware's control of VOCs from industrial cleaning solvents facilities; automobile and light-duty truck coating operations; paper, film, and foil coating units; flat wood paneling products; and flexible packaging printing presses may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. General Information A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

1.Docket.EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0808. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically throughwww.regulations.govor in hard copy at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

2.Electronic Access.You may access thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the EPA Internet under theFederal Registerlistings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

EPA is providing notice of a final determination to deny an administrative petition submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA issued an earlier notice tentatively denying this same petition in January 2011 and solicited written comments on this tentative decision (76 FR 5107, Jan. 28, 2011). The petition requested EPA to review the final rule, “Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification System To Produce Synthesis Gas,” published in theFederal Registeron January 2, 2008 (73 FR 57). The EPA has considered the petition, along with information contained in the rulemaking docket, as well as the five public comments received on the tentative denial. After evaluating all of this information, EPA has decided to issue a final determination denying the petition. In a letter from EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus dated April 3, 2012, EPA provided the petitioner with its final decision to deny the administrative petition. The letter, which is included as an Appendix to thisFederal Registerdocument explains EPA's reasons for denying the petition, as well as discussing the other comments received on the tentative denial.

On March 18, 2010, EPA published in theFederal Registera Direct Final rule entitled,Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule(75 FR 12989) (hereafter the Direct Final rule). This Direct Final rule included approximately 90 specific technical amendments to correct or clarify parts of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. At the same time, EPA also published a parallel proposed rule (75 FR 13006) that requested comment on the same changes.

We stated in that Direct Final rule that if we received adverse comment on any of the amendments by May 3, 2010, the affected amendments would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerof those specific amendments. We received some adverse comments and as a result withdrew six amendments on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31716). The remaining amendments for which we did not receive adverse comment became effective on June 16, 2010.

The six amendments that were withdrawn are:

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)—related to the hazardous waste accumulation time for large quantity generators;

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)—related to the date upon which each period of accumulation begins and which must be clearly marked and visible for inspection on each container and tank;

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(5)—related to the closure requirements for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings;

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B)—also related to the closure requirements for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings;

• 40 CFR 266.20(b)—related to recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal; and

• 40 CFR 261.32(a)—related to the entry for hazardous waste number K107 in a table.

EPA is publishing today's final rule to address the adverse comments received on the last two amendments listed above and to finalize these amendments. The amendments we are finalizing are: (1) Making the conforming change to 40 CFR 266.20(b); and (2) correcting the entry “K107” in the table at 40 CFR 261.32(a). The other four amendments that were withdrawn will remain withdrawn unless and until EPA decides to take action on them in the future.1

Entities potentially affected by this action include facilities subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and states implementing the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

Background

On December 14, 2011, we published a direct final rule entitled “Seagoing Barges” in theFederal Register(76 FR 77712). That rule would have redefined “seagoing barge” in 46 CFR parts 90 and 91 and would have revised 46 CFR parts 2, 24, 30, 70, 90, 91, and 188 to exempt specified seagoing barges from inspection and certification to align Coast Guard regulations with the language of the applicable statutes. On March 29, 2012, we published a correction to the direct final rule in theFederal Register(77 FR 18929) to correct the inadvertent transposition of the titles of two tables in our amendatory instructions and to publish the vessel inspection tables in their entirety so that the format of the tables would be consistent with the currentFederal Registerformat requirements. On April 6, 2012, (77 FR 20727) we published a notice of withdrawal for the original direct final rule because we received two adverse comments. Because the direct final rule will not become effective as scheduled, we must also withdraw the vessel inspection tables republished as part of the correction because they are not consistent with the current regulatory text.

We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 494, 502, 525, 33 CFR 1.05-55, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Because the inspection tables republished as part of the correction are not consistent with the current regulatory text, we are withdrawing the correction.