As published, the final regulation contained an error which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 1485 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

Background

The Ex-Im Bank published a notice of proposed rulemaking in theFederal Register, 77 FR 27140 (May 9, 2012), proposing to exempt portions of a system of records entitled “EIB-35—Office of Inspector General Investigative Records” and held by the Ex-Im Bank Office of Inspector General (OIG), from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The exemptions are necessary in order for Ex-Im Bank OIG to carry out its investigative responsibilities pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The Ex-Im Bank OIG published the system of records notice in theFederal Register, 77 FR 26755 (May 7, 2012), and comments were invited on both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the System of Records Notice (SORN).

Ex-Im Bank did not receive any comments on the SORN or the NPRM. Ex-Im Bank will implement the rulemaking as proposed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Ex-Im Bank amends chapter IV of Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Discussion

We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron March 16, 2012 (77 FR 15636). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

United Airlines has no objections to the content of the proposed rule (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012).

Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012) to refer to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1227, Revision 05, dated March 27, 2012. Airbus also requested that we give credit for actions done using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1227, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2010; Revision 02, dated March 10, 2011; Revision 03, dated July 28, 2011; and Revision 04, dated February 14, 2012.

We agree with the request. We have updated paragraphs (g) and (m)(5) of this AD to refer to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1227, Revision 05, dated March 27, 2012. We have also revised paragraph (j)(1) of this AD to allow credit for actions done using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1227, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2010; Revision 02, dated March 10, 2011; Revision 03, dated July 28, 2011; and Revision 04, dated February 14, 2012. We have re-identified paragraphs (j)(2) through (j)(6) of the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012) as paragraph (j)(2) in this AD, and indicated that the service information in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

Paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012) inadvertently referred to paragraph (l) of the NPRM, rather than paragraph (k) of the NPRM, as the exception to the proposed requirements. We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to paragraph (k) of this AD for the exception.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 694 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 39 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $5,750 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,291,110, or $9,065 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 15636, March 16, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact withFAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

This AD is prompted by an incident in which a crack in the MGB housing, in the cored passage area adjacent to the scissor bracket mount, allowed a measurable amount of oil to leak from the MGB. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of oil, failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of the same type design.

Sikorsky has developed inspection procedures and issued Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB 92-63-032 Basic Issue, dated December 22, 2011 (ASB 92-63-032), to detect a crack in the MGB by inspecting the area of the MGB housing, as indicated in Figure 1 of ASB 92-63-032, for the presence of oil. We reviewed ASB 92-63-032, which describes procedures to inspect the MGB for indications of oil leakage. If indications of oil leakage are found, ASB 92-63-032 specifies cleaning the inspection area, performing a ground run and confirming the source of the leakage by using a specified ultraviolet light and repeating the visual inspection using a 10X magnifying glass. If any oil leakage is found, the ASB 92-63-032 states that the MGB is not to be used for further flight until direction is provided by Sikorsky. ASB 92-63-032 also requires a recurrent inspection for any oil leakage, and references Sikorsky Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision No. 63-50, (TR 63-50), and Temporary Revision No. 5-104 (TR 5-104), both dated December 22, 2011. TR 63-50 adds the MGB inspection procedures to the aircraft maintenance manual, and TR 5-104 adds the MGB inspection requirement to the “Before First Flight of the Day Checklist.” TR 5-104 also specifies inspecting the MGB before the first flight of the day, not to exceed 10 flight hours between inspections.

Since issuing ASB 92-63-032, Sikorsky has issued S-92 ASB No. ASB 92-63-034 Basic Issue, dated March 8, 2012 (ASB 92-63-034), which describes procedures to detect cracks in the MGB main module assembly with a one-time eddy-current and fluorescent-penetrant inspection. ASB 92-63-034 also states that upon compliance with the eddy-current inspection “the daily visual inspection implemented by ASB 92-63-032 is waived.”

This AD requires repetitively inspecting the main gearbox with a 10X magnifying glass for a crack. If there is a crack, or if any oil leakage is detected, this AD requires replacing the MGB with an airworthy MGB. This AD also provides for a one-time eddy-current inspection of the main module assembly of the MGB as an optional terminating action.

The ASB requires inspecting for any oil leakage, while this AD requires inspecting for a crack, which may be indicated by the presence of oil leakage. The ASB requires sending photographic documentation of any oil leakage to Sikorsky; this AD does not. The ASB also requires contacting Sikorsky for further direction if any oil leakage is confirmed; this AD requires replacing any affected MGB with an airworthy MGB.

We estimate that this AD will affect 16 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the MGB will require one work hour for a total cost to the operator of $85 and a cost to the entire U.S. fleet of $1,360 per inspection cycle. Performing the eddy-current inspection of the MGB will require 2 work hours for a total cost to the operator of $170 and a cost to the entire U.S. fleet of $2,720. If cracked, we estimate replacing a MGB will require 112 work hours and required parts will cost $260,000, for a total cost to the operator of $269,520.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 10 hours time-in-service, and repeated on a daily basis. These helicopters are primarily used in the offshore industry, and this is a very short compliance time for this industry.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

We received reports of failure to inspect or document the paint thickness on flight controls (ailerons, rudder, elevator), potentially having a negative impact on the flutter characteristics of the airplane. Excessive paint thickness will affect the balance moment of the flight control surface. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane due to flutter.

We reviewed the following service information, which describes procedures for measuring the paint thickness on both sides of each flight control surface (ailerons, rudder, and elevator) and corrective actions if necessary. The customer bulletins also describe procedures for revising the AFM to advise the flightcrew to not exceed a certain altitude until corrective actions have been accomplished. Corrective actions include removing the flight control surface and rebalancing, stripping, repainting with an average thickness less than 5.0 mils, and sanding/buffing down to 5.0 mils or less and re-measuring thicknesses (not recommended on surfaces with averages exceeding 7.0 mils).

• For Model G-IV airplanes: Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin 223, including Part I and Part II Service Reply Cards, dated March 23, 2012, which includes Gulfstream GIV Airplane Flight Manual Supplement GIV-2012-01, dated March 13, 2012.

• For Model GV airplanes: Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 196, including Part I and Part II Service Reply Cards, dated March 23, 2012, which includes Gulfstream GV Airplane Flight Manual Supplement GV-2012-01, dated March 13, 2012.

• For Model GIV-X airplanes: Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin 140, including Part I and Part II Service Reply Cards, dated March 23, 2012, which includes Gulfstream G450/G350 Airplane Flight Manual Supplement G450-2012-01, dated March 13, 2012.

• For Model GV-SP airplanes: Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 121, including Part I and Part II Service Reply Cards, dated March 23, 2012, which includes Gulfstream G550 Airplane Flight Manual Supplement G550-2012-01, dated March 13, 2012; and Gulfstream G550 EASA Airplane Flight Manual Supplement EASA-G550-2012-01, dated March 14, 2012.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.” This AD also requires sending the measurement and corrective action results to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation.

The customer bulletins specified in paragraph (g) of this AD incorporate the airplane flight manual supplement (AFMS) as an on-condition action. This AD requires operators to incorporate the AFMS within 20 days after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that this action is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.

Although the customer bulletins specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specify that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this AD requires operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule, because we received reports of failure to inspect or document the paint thickness on flight controls (ailerons, rudder, elevator), potentially having a negative impact on the flutter characteristics of the airplane. Excessive paint thickness will affect the balance moment of the flight control surface. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane due to flutter. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include the docket number FAA-2012-0677 and Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-105-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

According to the manufacturer, the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-19-11, Amendment 39-12891 (67 FR 61478, October 1, 2002). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in theFederal Registeron February 22, 2012 (77 FR 10406). That NPRM proposed to continue to require replacement of the existing deactivation pin, aft cascade pin bushing, and pin insert on each thrust reverser half with new, improved components. That NPRM also proposed to require a dye penetrant inspection for cracking of the rivet holes of the bushing plate and repair or replacement, if necessary; and for certain airplanes, replacing the existing bushing with a new bushing and deactivation pin, and installing a new or serviceable stowage bracket for the deactivation pins on all airplanes powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D series engines.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing concurs with the content of the proposed rule (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012).

Atlas Air requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012) to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM, if those actions were accomplished before the effective date of the AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78A0089, Revision 3, dated December 18, 2003.

We agree. Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012) provided credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM if those actions were performed before the effective date of the NPRM using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78A0089, Revision 2, dated March 13, 2003; Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78A0089, Revision 3, dated December 18, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78A0089, Revision 4, dated March 6, 2008. We have revised paragraph (i) of this final rule to also provide credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD.

We have revised certain headings throughout this AD and revised Note 1 of the NPRM (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012) to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. We have also revised paragraph (i) of this AD. These changes have not affected the intent of those paragraphs.

We have revised the heading and wording for paragraph (i) of this AD to provide appropriate credit for previous accomplishment of certain actions. This change does not affect the intent of that paragraph.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10406, February 22, 2012).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions (repair or replacement of bushing plate) specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2010-0017, dated January 29, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition for the PZL Model PZL W-3A helicopter with a generator air outlet collector, part number (P/N) GT40PCz8B, installed. EASA advises there was a report of an in-flight incident where cyclic control stick movement was restricted. Post-flight investigation revealed that this incident was caused by the rotation of a loose collector, resulting in the locking of the longitudinal control system hydraulic actuator fork end. This condition, if not detected, could lead to restricted cyclic control stick movement, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Poland and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Poland, EASA, their technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in their AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design.

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

PZL has issued Service Bulletin No. BS-37-09-230, dated October 13, 2009 (SB), which specifies modifying the collector attachments to prevent collector rotation. The SB specifies installing a cable and reinforcing the welded clamping rings' connections with additional rivets. EASA classified this SB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2010-0017 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

This AD requires modifying the collector attachments with a protective cable and additional riveting as described in Section II of the manufacturer's service bulletin.

The EASA AD requires compliance within one month after the effective date of their AD, while this AD requires compliance within 100 hours time-in-service.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are none of these products on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

In a notice published in theFederal Registerof February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9608), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 1B4783) had been filed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), 700 Second St. NE., Washington, DC 20002. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in § 177.1580 (21 CFR 177.1580) to no longer provide for the use of PC resins in baby bottles and sippy cups because these uses have been abandoned. PC resins are formed by the condensation of 4,4′-isopropylenediphenol (i.e., Bisphenol A (BPA)), and carbonyl chloride or diphenyl carbonate. PC resins may be safely used as articles or components of articles intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food, in accordance with the prescribed conditions of § 177.1580.

Under section 409(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(i)), FDA “shall by regulation prescribe the procedure by which regulations under the foregoing provisions of this section may be amended or repealed, and such procedure shall conform to the procedure provided in this section for the promulgation of such regulations.” FDA's regulations specific to administrative actions for food additives provide as follows: “The Commissioner, on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, pursuant to part 10 of this chapter, may propose the issuance of a regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food additive or granting or repealing an exception for such additive.” (§ 171.130(a) (21 CFR 171.130(a))). These regulations further provide: “Any such petition shall include an assertion of facts, supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical, or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may justify its amendment or appeal. New data shall be furnished in the form specified in §§ 171.1 and 171.100 for submitting petitions.” (§ 171.130(b)). Under these regulations, a petitioner may propose that FDA amend a food additive regulation if the petitioner can demonstrate that there are “old uses abandoned” for the relevant food additive. Such abandonment must be complete for any intended uses in the U.S. market. While section 409 of the FD&C Act and § 171.130 also provide for amending or revoking a food additive regulation based on safety, an amendment or revocation based on abandonment is not based on safety, but is based on the fact that regulatory authorization is no longer necessary for the use of the food additive because that use has been permanently and completely abandoned.

Abandonment may be based on the abandonment of certain authorized food additive uses for a substance (e.g., if a substance is no longer used in certain product categories) or on the abandonment of all authorized food additive uses of a substance (e.g., if a substance is no longer being manufactured). If a petition seeks an amendment to a food additive regulation based on the abandonment of certain uses of the food additive, such uses must be adequately defined so that both the scope of the abandonment and any amendment to the food additive regulation are clear.

The ACC petition contained public information and information collected from companies that produce PC resins to support the claim that baby bottles and sippy cups manufactured from PC resins are no longer being introduced into the U.S. market and that manufacturers of baby bottles and sippy cups have abandoned the use of PC resins in making these products. Specifically, the petition contained the results of an industry poll showing that the PC resin manufacturers, which represent over 97 percent of worldwide PC resin production capacity, are no longer, to their knowledge, selling PC resins to be used in the manufacture of baby bottles and sippy cups intended for import into the United States or sale in the U.S. market.

The Agency provided 60 days for comments on the filing notice. FDA received six distinct comments from individuals and consumer groups (FDA received seven comments total, but one represented a corrected version of a comment submitted earlier). Three of the six comments exclusively addressed the safety of BPA in food, two of the comments addressed both safety and abandonment, while one comment addressed only abandonment. While none of these comments included any information to indicate that the use of BPA-based PC resins in the manufacture of baby bottles and sippy cups has not been completely and permanently abandoned, or to indicate that these uses were not adequately defined, these comments raised six main issues, discussed further in this document.

As indicated in the filing notice (77 FR 9608 at 9609), because the petition was based on an assertion of abandonment, the Agency did not request comments on the safety of the use of PC resins in baby bottles and sippy cups. Such safety information is not relevant to abandonment and, therefore, any comments addressing the safety of PC resins were not considered in the Agency's evaluation of this petition. Separate from FDA's consideration of this petition, FDA is actively assessing the safety of BPA (see 75 FR 17145, April 5, 2010; see alsohttp://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm).

(Comment 1) One comment stated that the Agency did not offer additional description or clarification of the term “baby bottles,” which was defined by ACC as “infant feeding bottles.” The comment stated that this definition failed to identify the full spectrum of beverage containers from which infants, toddlers, and children consume beverages.

(Response) The Agency has concluded that the term infant feeding bottle (baby bottle) adequately defines the specific use of PC resins that is the subject of the proposed action so that both the scope of the abandonment and this amendment to the food additive regulation are clear. FDA agrees that this term does not cover the full spectrum of beverage containers from which infants, toddlers, and children consume beverages. However, this spectrum of beverage containers was not the scope of the petition. Instead, the petition was limited to the use of PC resins in baby bottles and sippy cups. FDA concludes that the terms “baby bottle” and “infant feeding bottle” are generally recognizedby both the general public and the regulated industry and adequately define this use of PC resins addressed by the petition.

(Comment 2) The petition defined “sippy cup” as a spill-proof cup designed to help train babies to drink from cups. As stated in the filing notice (77 FR 9608 at 9609), for the purposes of this petition, FDA more specifically considers “sippy cup” to mean a spill-proof cup, including its closures and lids, designed to train babies or toddlers to drink from cups. FDA specifically requested comment on whether this use of PC resins is adequately defined. Two of the comments expressed the opinion that the term “sippy cup” is narrow or not inclusive of the different types of bottles and cups used by small children and toddlers, and defining sippy cups as cups that are spill-resistant would not cover the use of PC resins in toddler cups (such as drinking cups without a lid) that do not have this feature. One comment recommended that the term “designed for” be clarified to include both functionality (e.g., spill-resistant) and aesthetics (e.g., anything with cartoon characters) in order to cover a broader category of products. Another comment recommended that the definition of “sippy cup” be expanded to include all cups rated for the target age group. No comments stated that this particular use of PC resins was not adequately defined.

(Response) The Agency has determined that the functionality of a spill-resistant cup is the critical factor in defining the particular use of PC resins that the petition asserted has been permanently and completely abandoned. The petition asserted that the use of PC resins in spill-proof cups has been abandoned. Because the scope of the petition was limited to functionality, and did not address aesthetics, FDA concludes that the functionality of spill resistance is the defining feature of a “sippy cup” as contemplated by the petition, and about which FDA requested comment.

The Agency has concluded that the phrase “spill proof cups, including their closures and lids, designed to help train babies or toddlers to drink from cups (sippy cups)” adequately defines the specific use of PC resins that is the subject of the proposed action and is generally recognized by the regulated industry and the public. The comments that addressed the term “sippy cup” did not assert that this term is unclear to consumers or industry, or that this use of PC resins is not adequately defined; instead, the comments opined that any action taken by FDA should address beverage containers used by children that are beyond the scope of these terms. FDA agrees that these terms do not cover the full spectrum of beverage containers from which infants, toddlers, and children consume beverages. However, this spectrum of beverage containers was not the scope of the petition. Instead, the petition was limited to specific uses of PC resins.

(Comment 3) Two comments recommended that the scope of any action taken by FDA in response to ACC's petition include other products that an infant or toddler may regularly put in its mouth (e.g., pacifiers, teethers, tableware) or that may come in contact with breast milk (e.g., breast pump, pumping supplies, breast milk storage kits).

(Response) The Agency has concluded that it is not appropriate, in this amendment to the food additive regulations, to address any uses of PC resins beyond those specified in ACC's petition, for the following reasons:

• The suggested products are beyond the scope of the uses as described in the petition, about which the petition provided detailed evidence, and about which FDA requested comment; and

• No comments received by FDA provided specific information to demonstrate that any additional uses of PC resins have been completely and permanently abandoned.

(Comment 4) One comment expressed the opinion that PC resins are still used worldwide in the manufacture of plastics products and, although the current manufacturers of sippy cups do not currently use these resins, a new producer may still choose to use these PC resins to make plastic products. Accordingly, the comment asserts that removing these uses of PC resins from the food additive regulations leaves the opportunity for these uses of BPA to go “unchecked.”

(Response) The Agency does not agree with this comment. First, the petition provided evidence that the use of PC resins in the manufacture of baby bottles and sippy cups has been permanently and completely abandoned, and FDA did not receive any comments demonstrating that these uses have not been abandoned. The comment addressed uses of PC resins that are beyond the scope of the petition and this action. A food is considered to be adulterated if it contains an unapproved food additive (see section 409 of the FD&C Act). The amendment to § 177.1580 means that FDA's regulations no longer provide for the use of PC resins in baby bottles and sippy cups.

(Comment 5) One comment asserted that because FDA does not require that manufacturers identify the presence of BPA-containing materials in their labeling, the general public is defenseless to counter industry assertions about the abandonment (i.e., the general public has no way of knowing whether industry has in fact abandoned certain uses of BPA-containing materials or whether certain products contain BPA), and recommended that FDA require labeling of all food contact materials that contain BPA.

(Response) The petition did not request that FDA establish requirements for the labeling of products manufactured with BPA. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of the action requested by the petition, and FDA did not consider this comment.

(Comment 6) One comment expressed the opinion that one way to determine if PC resins are not present in a plastic product is to measure the presence of BPA in the product. The comment suggested that, in addition to granting ACC's petition, FDA should set a limit of the amount of BPA found in the other suggested plastic products to 0.1 parts per billion.

(Response) The petition did not request that FDA establish limits for the amount of BPA in certain products. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of the action requested by the petition, and FDA did not consider this comment.

FDA reviewed the data and information in the petition and other available relevant material to evaluate whether the use of BPA-based PC resins in the manufacture of baby bottles and sippy cups has been completely and permanently abandoned. Based on the available information, the Agency concludes that these uses have been completely and permanently abandoned. Therefore, the regulations in 21 CFR part 177 should be amended as set forth in this document.

In accordance with § 171.1(h), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reachingits decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 171.1(h), the Agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.

The Agency has previously considered the environmental effects of this rule as announced in the notice of filing for FAP 1B4783 (77 FR 9608). No new information or comments have been received that would affect the Agency's previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections by (seeDATES). Each objection must be separately numbered, and each numbered objection must specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested must specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 177 is amended as follows:

On January 30, 2012, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing regulations to protect public safety if the 34th America's Cup sailing races occur, as proposed, in 2012 and 2013 on San Francisco Bay. See 77 FR 4501. The Coast Guard provided a 90-day period for public comment on the proposedregulations, and also accepted public comments that arrived shortly after the close of that comment period. The Coast Guard also held three public meetings to gather information pertaining to activities on the Bay that might be affected by the America's Cup events or related safety regulations. A record of these meetings is available in the docket, which you may access following the procedure outlined in theADDRESSESsection above. We received a total of 77 comments during the public comment period.

The Coast Guard considered the public input received through the docket and at these meetings when developing this rule. Typical comments included the following: the need for clarification on the dates and times of the races; concern about the effects of the rule on recreational users' access to the Bay during the events; and general concerns about the events' impact on commerce. These concerns are discussed below.

Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta or marine parade. The Commander of Coast Guard District 11 has delegated to the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco the responsibility of issuing such regulations. The COTP also has the authority to establish safety zones under 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) and 165.5.

The America's Cup Race Management (ACRM) has applied for a Marine Event Permit (MEP) to hold the 34th America's Cup sailing events on the waters of San Francisco Bay in California, and that application is still pending. The Coast Guard's approval of the ACRM permit application is contingent upon completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the MEP (referred to in this document as the “Permitting EA”) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On June 8, 2012, the Permitting EA was made available for public comment atwww.americascupnepa.org.The Permitting EA associated with the MEP addresses the impact of this rule, as well as other issues. The Permitting EA was conducted jointly with the National Park Service and other federal agencies and addresses both land and water environmental impacts, including the on-water impacts of this special local regulation and safety zone. To accommodate the additional time required to complete the Permitting EA, while still providing public notice of and benefiting from public comment on the safety provisions of this rule, we conducted this rulemaking before approval of the MEP. As part of the rulemaking, we provided an environmental analysis of the specific on-water environmental impacts of the rule (“Rulemaking EA”). The Permitting EA is broader than, and encompasses the topics of, the Rulemaking EA.

We anticipate that this special local regulation and safety zone will be necessary to ensure public safety during the sailing events should the MEP be approved. If the MEP is not approved, however, we will withdraw this rule.

The Coast Guard conducted widespread public outreach to better understand the potential impacts of this rule on commercial operations and recreational activities on the Bay. To provide the public with an opportunity to comment on this rulemaking process, the Coast Guard held three public meetings and established a 90-day comment period. As noted above, we received a total of 77 comments. Of those comments received, 87 percent came from recreational users, 7 percent came from environmental organizations, and 6 percent came from commercial vessel operators.

The majority of comments received from recreational users came from the boardsailing community, which includes windsurfers and kitesurfers. Many boardsailors raised concerns about limited waterfront access adjacent to Crissy Field and the on-water areas near the Golden Gate Bridge amenable to boardsailing. Boardsailors indicated that the proposed rule would prevent their launching from Crissy Field, and environmental organizations raised similar concerns about recreational access.

In response to comments about waterfront access, this rule modifies the regulated area for 2012 to allow for more recreational access in vicinity of Crissy Field. The regulated area for 2012 will be smaller in size and located further east than the regulated area originally proposed in the NPRM. The size and location of this regulated area will encourage spectator-viewing ashore, provide greater recreational access to the western portion of the Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge, and minimize crowding in vicinity of Crissy Field. For these reasons, there is no longer a need for the Coast Guard to establish an “Area Closed to All Motorized Vessels and Vessels Greater Than 20 Feet” in 2012. We have therefore removed the proposed area from the 2012 special local regulation. We did not make similar modifications to the 2013 regulated area, however, because the size and location of that area is appropriate for the larger, faster vessels to be used in the 2013 events. Because the size and location of the regulated area for 2013 have not changed, the rule will maintain the “Area Closed to All Motorized Vessels and Vessels Greater Than 20 Feet” during the 2013 events.

To address concerns relating to access along the San Francisco waterfront in 2013, a transit zone will provide access to all the port facilities along the waterfront as proposed in the NPRM. This transit zone will enable both commercial and recreational users continued access to waterfront berths and facilities during the races. Depending on racing activity or spectator traffic, the Coast Guard may direct the use of “follow-me” boats to guide commercial and recreational users through the transit zone. To prevent crowding and congestion in this area, vessels are prohibited from loitering or anchoring in the transit zone.

In addition to their concerns pertaining to limited access, many boardsailors expressed concern about the length of the proposed enforcement period of the special local regulation, which would have applied between noon and 5 p.m. on days designated for program events. Several comments from boardsailors indicated that much of the Bay Area's recreational boardsailing occurs after the work day during the week, which coincides with the proposed enforcement period. To address these concerns, the Coast Guard will modify the effective dates for 2012 and the effective dates and enforcement period for 2013. In this final rule, we will use the term “program dates” instead of “race dates” because some of the scheduled enforcement dates encompass activities other than racing, such as the opening day ceremonies.

Although the 2012 enforcement period will continue to be from noon to 5 p.m., the events will be shorter than proposed in the NPRM and include only 6 days of program activity instead of 12 program days during a 22 day period. The ACRM has recently proposed to conduct an additional America's Cup World Series event during the 2012 San Francisco Bay Fleet Week activities from October 4-7, 2012. If approved, that event may be covered by an existing regulation for Fleet Week, but would not be covered by this regulation.

In response to comments requesting that the enforcement period end earlier in the day in 2013, we have shifted the enforcement period one hour earlier to accommodate the recreational community. Enforcement will occur from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on designated program days between July 4 and September 23, 2013, and not from noon to 5 p.m. as originally proposed. Not every day during this enforcement period will be a program day, and enforcement will not occur on days when no programmed activity is scheduled.

Additionally, as noted in the NPRM, event activity will end earlier on some program days when fewer races are scheduled. The enforcement period will not exceed the dates or times specified in the rule.

The Coast Guard received several comments and suggestions about communicating to the public the dates and times when the rule is being enforced. For the 2012 races, a program calendar is available in the docket, and the Coast Guard will use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF Channel 16 to announce when enforcement begins and ends on each program day. For the 2013 races, a finalized program calendar will be posted in the docket no later than June 1, 2013. For the time being, a tentative program calendar is available in the docket. Notice of the finalized 2013 program calendar will be published in theFederal Registerand the Local Notice to Mariners. The Coast Guard will also use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to announce when enforcement begins and ends on each program day in 2013. Based on the public's comments, the Coast Guard intends to explore social media tools or other means to help inform and update the public on event activity. The Coast Guard will work with ACRM, local government agencies, port partners, and other maritime communities to ensure widest dissemination of information.

In addition to comments on recreational access, we received comments pertaining to the NEPA Rulemaking EA.

One comment suggested the public comment period for the Rulemaking EA was too short. The comment period on the Rulemaking EA was designed to coincide with the comment period for the rule, without delaying this final rule, and we believe it was adequate because of the limited subject of this rule and the number and quality of comments we did receive during the comment period. We also accepted and considered comments arriving after the close of the comment period on April 30, 2012.

Another comment questioned the adequacy of the Rulemaking EA in addressing impacts to eelgrass, birds, and other wildlife. These issues are discussed throughout the Rulemaking EA, including noting the location of known eelgrass beds in Figure BIO-3. Impact thresholds for these species are found on pages 4-8 and 4-9 of the Rulemaking EA. The analysis of impacts to these biological resources is found in the EA on pages 4-13 through 4-17.

Another comment asked that the Coast Guard describe the marine protective closures for sensitive resources and prescribe enforcement methods to ensure wildlife protective areas. We recognize the need to describe such existing protected areas for public awareness and have included a figure in the docket that demarcates the only Wildlife Protection Area (WPA) within the regulated area, at Crissy Field. This WPA, which extends 300 feet from shore, is established and regulated by the National Park Service (NPS) to prevent boats and other maritime activity from disturbing nesting snowy plovers on Crissy Field. During the America's Cup enforcement periods, we understand the NPS also intends to establish a 500 feet environmental buffer around Alcatraz Island, closed to all maritime activity, to protect nesting seabirds along the western cliffs of the island.

While the Coast Guard will use its authorities to enforce existing marine environmental protection regulations and provide assistance to other agencies when requested, the proposed creation of enforcement authorities, operational strategies for the Crissy Field WPA, or an environmental buffer proposed by another agency is outside of the scope of this rule, which is being promulgated to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters in accordance with 33 CFR 100.35 and 165.5. Any new environmental protection regulations would be related to a determination of environmental harm, which was not found in relation to the implementation of this special local regulation and safety zone.

Another comment indicated that there were errors in the Rulemaking EA relating to the 2012 dates and concerns that the project description is unsettled. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the event dates were not finalized by the date of the EA and states on pages 1-1 and 1-2 of the Rulemaking EA that “The Marine Event Permit cannot be issued at this time as the details of AC34, including the exact nature of the sailing event, control measures, race dates, etc., are still being finalized.” As noted elsewhere in this discussion, the Permitting EA associated with the MEP will address the impact of this rule, as well as other issues.

Similarly, another comment stated that the Rulemaking EA was procedurally inadequate and that the EA and the special local regulation are “segmented.” The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. As described in theBasis and Purposesection above and on pages 1-1 and 1-2 of the Rulemaking EA, the Coast Guard has made no decision on the MEP. The Coast Guard's approval of the MEP application is contingent upon completion of the Permitting EA, which is being conducted jointly with the NPS and will require more time for completion as it covers both land and water environmental impacts. As stated on page 2-1 of the Rulemaking EA, this rule “is unique among the other federal permits and approvals and requires a formal rulemaking process, in accordance with 33 CFR 100 and 165”; therefore, the Coast Guard determined that in order to accommodate the additional time required to complete the Permitting EA, while still providing public notice of and benefiting from public comment on the safety provisions of this rule, we conducted this rulemaking prior to the completion of the jointly executed Permitting EA and the approval of the MEP.

Under these circumstances, the Coast Guard is establishing this special local regulation and safety zone prior to a decision on the MEP or the completion of the Permitting EA. The Permitting EA is broader than, and will encompass the topics of, the Rulemaking EA. If the MEP is not approved, we will withdraw this rule.

A comment suggested that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared for this project. The Rulemaking EA analyzed all issues related to the proposed action and found that there would not be adverse impacts from implementing the SLR; therefore, an EIS is not required.

Another comment pertaining to the Rulemaking EA stated that Section 1.5 (Summary of Laws) should be amended to include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Coast Guard acknowledges its responsibility as a Federal agency under the MBTA to protect migratory birds. The Rulemaking EA on pages 4-17 and 4-18 contains analysis on the effects of this rule on colonial birds at Alcatraz. It states that “Because the proposed action does not add new vessels to the area, and because the proposed action zone encompasses thesouthwestern portions of Alcatraz during the 2013 events, the effects of the proposed action are negligible.” This issue, including a description of the MBTA and impacts related to colonial birds, is analyzed in the Permitting EA. This is appropriate because the action alternatives considered in the Permitting EA could have the potential to affect colonial birds.

In addition to those comments received from recreational users and environmental organizations concerned about the Rulemaking EA, the Coast Guard also received comments from representatives of the local maritime industry.

One operator shared concerns pertaining to the shipping industry's ability to meet work shift schedules. The Coast Guard acknowledges these concerns and the need for a safe and accessible waterway. The Coast Guard will make every effort to maximize the efficient use of the Bay and minimize delays for commercial vessels. As proposed in the NPRM, shipping traffic may continue to operate using the existing Deep Water (two-way) Traffic Lane during the America's Cup sailing races. The Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) specified in 33 CFR 165.1181 would continue to apply in this area. This RNA contains one-way provisions for certain vessels such as those greater than 1,600 gross tons carrying dangerous cargos. At the COTP's discretion, vessels in addition to those listed in the RNA could be restricted to one-way traffic as coordinated by the VTS. Such a one-way traffic scheme could allow more maneuvering space for transiting vessels and may reduce navigational obstacles.

Another comment expressed concern about the location of the contingent regulated area and its potential to interfere with shipping traffic. In the unlikely event that racing is planned in the contingent regulated area, it will only be conducted with COTP approval. If the COTP deems that racing would interfere with the commercial shipping traffic requiring transit through the contingent regulated area, then the race will be delayed, shortened, or terminated to accommodate commercial shipping schedules.

We also received a comment from a maritime labor representative that expressed concern for landside safety and security during the America's Cup sailing events. Coast Guard response to landside safety and security issues are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, which establishes regulations specific to the on-water activities associated with the marine event.

Ferry vessel operators expressed concern that the proposed positioning of the transit zone for 2013 does not fully allow ferry operators to maintain their schedules. For this reason, we are modifying the coordinates of the eastern portion of the transit zone to improve access to Piers 31 through 45. The eastern entrances of the transit zone may also be temporarily closed as races finish, as was proposed in the NPRM. Vessels are still prohibited from loitering or blocking the transit area. At the COTP's discretion, vessel movement in this zone can also be restricted to one-way traffic coordinated by the Patrol Commander.

We made no changes to the proposed restrictions on Anchorage 7 or the closure of shipping lanes.

The Coast Guard appreciates the comments and concerns brought forward during the NPRM public comment period. These comments have been reviewed, discussed, and incorporated into this rulemaking where changes were needed.

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 Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Although this rule restricts navigation on San Francisco Bay, these restrictions will only be in place in a small area for a limited time on specific dates. The entities most likely to be affected by this rule are commercial shipping vessels, ferry vessels, fishing vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. We expect this event to be well publicized so that waterway users are able to plan their activities in advance to take into account any restrictions.

The rule does not exceed a five-hour period between noon and 5 p.m. on certain dates and 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on other dates. On many race days, the affected period will be shorter. The entities affected will be permitted to navigate around the restricted area during these periods, and the rule creates a traffic scheme for doing so. The rule does not prevent commercial operators from conducting operations during the America's Cup sailing events. Shipping traffic may operate around the regulated area using the Deep Water (two-way) Traffic Lane. The San Francisco VTS will help facilitate the safe and efficient use of the waterways.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We find that the rule has some effect on small entities, but does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which might be small entities: (i) The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit, operate, or anchor in a portion of the San Francisco Bay; and (ii) the owners and operators of recreational vessels using the regulated portion of San Francisco Bay.

Although this rule affects these small entities, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will restrict only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel traffic may pass safely around the area; (iii) vessel traffic may pass through the area with COTP approval; (iv) recreational vessel operators may use spaces outside of the affected areas; (v) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this regulated area via Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (vi) at times of high traffic density anticipated in 2013, there will be a transit zone implemented to facilitate navigation. These measures have been implemented during similar marine events such as Fleet Week and have been successful.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmentaljurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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 does not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

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 does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A copy of the environmental analysis is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because Shell vessel operations in the Port of Dutch Harbor will begin within 15 days and the safety zone is a necessary measure to ensure safety of life and property, and the protection of the flow of commerce.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Registerbecause immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the period of time when there will be unusually high vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea, and the event is scheduled to occur in less than 30 days.

The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorizes the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

Based on the expectation of increased maritime traffic due to the anticipated arrival of approximately twenty (20) vessels affiliated with planned offshore drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during a period of time that the Port of Dutch Harbor normally experiences increased vessel traffic, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones to ensure the safe transit of vessels within the navigable waters, from surface to the seabed, of the Port of Dutch Harbor and adjacent waters extending seaward to the limits of the territorial sea.

The purpose of the established temporary safety zones is to facilitate safe navigation and protect vessels from hazards caused by increased volume of vessel traffic, including hazards that may be intentionally created, in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters encompassed withinthe area from Cape Cheerful at 54-12.000 N 166-38.000 W north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea, and from Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea.

The Coast Guard is establishing safety zones in the navigable waters, from surface to seabed, within a 25-yard radius of moored or anchored Shell offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable waters, from surface to seabed, within a 100-yard radius of underway Shell offshore exploration or support vessels in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and the adjacent U.S. territorial sea from June 15, 2012, through July 31, 2012. The purpose of the safety zones is to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

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

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

The rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the Port of Dutch Harbor because of the limited area affected and the limited duration of the rule. The safety zones are also designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel around the safety zones without incurring additional cost or delay.

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 through or anchor within the Port of Dutch Harbor or adjacent waters, or transit through the waters in the near vicinity of the Port of Dutch Harbor from June 15, 2012 through July 31, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be effective from June 15, 2012 through July 31, 2012, and is limited only to waters, from surface to seabed, within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.

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

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

This rule will not call for the collection of new 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

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

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

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

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

On May 23, 2012 a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was published in theFederal Register(77 FR 30445). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to American Bridge Company of Coraopolis, PA to perform bridge maintenance on the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The contract provides for cleaning, painting, steel repair, and grid floor replacement to commence on September 1, 2012 with a completion date of May 1, 2013. The contractor will utilize a 40 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment staging. This safety zone will provide a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduced horizontal clearance. During this period the Coast Guard will require a one hour notification to the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge tender at the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway crossing, mile 283.1, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The bridge notification requirement will apply during the maintenance period for vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.

We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (34°13′07″ N, 077°48′46″ W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge tender while the safety zone is in effect. This zone will be in effect from 8 a.m. September 1, 2012 through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013

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 Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 a.m. September 1, 2012 through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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 will not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact theperson listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

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 determined 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 rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

(1)Fairport Harbor Mardi Gras, Fairport Harbor, OH;The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(17) will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 8, 2012.

(2)French Festival Fireworks, Cape Vincent, NY;The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(3) from 9:15 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 14, 2012.

(3)Oswego Harborfest, Oswego, NY;The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(8) from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 28, 2012.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one of these safety zones shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that one of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

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

IDEM submitted the requested SIP revision, consisting primarily of an updated reference to the 2011 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), on May 14, 2012.

IDEM held public hearings on February 1, 2012. IDEM did not receive any public comments concerning the SIP revision.

The State has requested that the SIP revision include:

Rule 326 IAC 1-1-3, definition of “References to Code of Federal Regulations.”IDEM updated the reference to the CFR in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2009 edition to the 2011 edition. This is solely an administrative change that allows Indiana to reference a more current version of the CFR. By amending 326 IAC 1-1-3 to reference the most current version of the CFR, the provision in Title 326 of the IAC will be consistent and current with federal regulations.

We are approving a revisions to the Indiana SIP to update the definition at 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the CFR,” to refer to the 2011 edition.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of thisFederal Registerpublication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 17, 2012 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 16, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 17, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 17, 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 judicialreview may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today'sFederal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as follows:

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-houraveraging period which replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards, so-called “infrastructure” requirements. To help states meet this statutory requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2).1 In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone standards. On September 15, 2008, the State of Idaho submitted a certification to EPA certifying that Idaho's SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5NAAQS. The certification included an analysis of Idaho's SIP as it relates to each section of the infrastructure requirements with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5NAAQS. Subsequently, on June 24, 2010, Idaho submitted an updated certification to EPA for sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 110(a)(2)(G). On April 11, 2012, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to act on Idaho's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 21702). Specifically in the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Idaho's SIP as meeting the requirements for the following 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed in the NPR, the proposed action did not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which will be addressed in a separate action.

In the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve portions of the June 20, 2011, SIP revision submitted by Idaho that applies Idaho's PSD Program to GHG-emitting sources above certain thresholds, updates Idaho's SIP to incorporate by reference revised versions of specific federal regulations, and removes unnecessary language from the SIP due to the incorporation by reference of the federal NAAQS and PSD regulations. In addition, EPA proposed to rescind the FIP put in place to ensure the availability of a permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Idaho.

EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the NPR, published April 11, 2012 (77 FR 21702). The public comment period for EPA's NPR closed on May 11, 2012. EPA received no comments on the proposed action.

Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Chapter 58 within “Indian Country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.2 Therefore, EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to “Indian Country” in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is consistent with EPA's previous approval of Idaho's PSD program, in which EPA specifically disapproved the program for sources within Indian Reservations in Idaho because the State had not shown it had authority to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent with EPA's approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits program. See 61 FR 64622 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval does not extend to Indian Country); 66 FR 50574 (October 4, 2001) (full approval does not extend to Indian Country).

EPA is approving the SIP submittals from the State of Idaho demonstrating that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is approving in full the following section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for Idaho for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), (M). EPA is taking no action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) at this time. EPA will address the requirements of this sub-element in a separate action. EPA is also approving a portion of Idaho's June 20, 2011, SIP submittal that applies Idaho's PSD Program to GHG-emitting sources at the emissions thresholds and in the same time frames as those specified in the Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010). In conjunction with this approval of Idaho's PSD program for GHG-emitting sources, EPA is rescinding the FIP at 40 CFR 52.37 which provides for EPA to be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Idaho.

EPA is also approving portions of Idaho's June 20, 2011, SIP submittal to revise the incorporation by reference of federal regulations revised as of July 1, 2010, in order to ensure Idaho's SIP is up to date with changes to federal regulations. EPA is not acting on the portions of the SIP revision that are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA or the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA. Finally, EPA is approving the removal of language from the Idaho SIP that has become unnecessary due to Idaho's incorporation by reference of the federal NAAQS and the federal PSD regulations. Specifically, EPA is approving the removal of the subsections of IDAPA 58.01.01.577 “Ambient Air Quality Standards for Specific Pollutants” that relate to pollutants for which EPA has promulgated a NAAQS, and which are now unnecessary because Idaho has incorporated the federal NAAQS by reference into the state SIP. EPA is also approving the changes to Idaho's PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.581.01 to remove the increments table in its entirety, and to instead reference the federal PSD increment requirements contained in 40 CFR 52.21(c), which are incorporated by reference in the Idaho SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 17, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology's Third Report and Order in WT Docket 07-250, adopted April 9, 2012, and released April 9, 2012. The full text of the Third Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site,http://www.bcpiweb.com;or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or emailFCC@BCPIWEB.com.Copies of the Third Report and Order also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 07-250. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site athttp://www.fcc.gov.

1. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to ensure that consumers with hearing loss are able to access wireless communications services through a wide selection of handsets without experiencing disabling radio frequency (RF) interference or other technical obstacles. In order to ensure that the hearing aid compatibility rules cover the greatest number of wireless handsets and reflect recent technological advances, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) (jointly the Bureaus) adopt in this Third Report and Order, pursuant to authority delegated by the Commission, the most current hearing aid compatibility technical standard.

2. The standard that the Bureaus adopt was developed through a voluntary, consensus-driven approach and is broadly supported by both industry and consumer groups. The Bureaus extend its appreciation for the efforts of the many parties involved in developing this standard. The Bureaus strongly encourage all parties to continue their efforts to refine and develop standards applicable to new telephone technologies that may create potential for interference with hearing aids.

3. To ensure that a selection of digital wireless handset models is available to consumers with hearing loss, the Commission's rules require both manufacturers and service providers to meet defined benchmarks for deploying hearing aid-compatible wireless phones. Specifically, manufacturers and service providers are required to offer minimum numbers or percentages of handset models that meet technical standards for compatibility with hearing aids operating in both acoustic coupling and inductive coupling modes. These benchmarks apply separately to each air interface for which the manufacturer or service provider offers handsets.

4. To define and measure the hearing aid compatibility of handsets, the Commission's rules reference the 2007 revision of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) technical standard C63.19 (the “2007 ANSI Standard”), formulated by the Accredited Standards Committee C63®—Electromagnetic Compatibility (ASC C63®). A handset is considered hearing aid-compatible for acoustic coupling if it meets a rating of at least M3 under the 2007 ANSI Standard. A handset is considered hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling if it meets a rating of at least T3. The 2007 ANSI Standard specifies testing procedures for determining the M-rating and T-rating of digital wireless handsets that operate over the air interfaces that, at the time it was promulgated, were commonly used for wireless services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands.

5. ASC C63® recently adopted an updated version of ANSI C63.19 (the “2011 ANSI Standard”). The 2011 ANSI Standard was published on May 27, 2011, and ASC C63® subsequently requested that the Commission adopt this newer version of the standard into its rules. The 2011 ANSI Standard expands the operating frequency range for covered wireless devices to 698 MHz-6 GHz. It also establishes a direct method for measuring the RF interference level of wireless devices to hearing aids, which enables testing procedures to be applied to operations over any RF air interface or protocol. In addition, the 2011 ANSI Standardexempts from testing certain low power transmitters that are unlikely to cause unacceptable RF interference to hearing aids and deems those transmitters to meet an acceptable M rating.

6. To ensure that the hearing aid compatibility standard codified in the rules remains current, the Commission has delegated to the Chief of WTB and the Chief of OET limited authority to update its rules as revisions to ANSI technical standard C63.19 are published. In particular, the Commission delegated the authority to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding on the use of future versions of the standard that do not raise major compliance issues. In addition, the Commission delegated authority to the Chief of WTB and the Chief of OET to conduct rulemaking proceedings to adopt future versions of the ANSI Standard that add frequency bands or air interfaces not covered by previous versions, if the new version does not impose materially greater obligations than those imposed on services already subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. Under this delegated authority, the Bureaus shall set an effective date for new obligations imposed on manufacturers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers as a result of their adoption of technical standards for additional frequency bands and air interfaces that is no less than one year after release of the order for manufacturers and nationwide (Tier I) carriers and no less than 15 months after release for other service providers.

7. On November 1, 2011, the Bureaus released theSecond Further Notice,which drew upon the request of ASC C63® to adopt the 2011 ANSI Standard as an applicable technical standard for evaluating the hearing aid compatibility of wireless handsets.SeeAmendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid Compatible Mobile Handsets, WT Docket No. 07-250,Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,76 FR 77747, Dec. 14, 2011 (Second Further Notice). In theSecond Further Notice,the Bureaus tentatively concluded to adopt the 2011 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus proposed a 12-month transition period during which multi-band and/or multi-mode handset models with certain operations not covered by the 2007 ANSI Standard could continue to be tested under that standard and launched as hearing aid-compatible with appropriate disclosure. The Bureaus also sought comment on whether a transition period of two years, with an additional three months for non-Tier I service providers, would be appropriate before applying handset deployment benchmarks to handset operations over air interfaces and frequency bands that are newly covered under the 2011 ANSI Standard.

8. The Bureaus adopt the 2011 ANSI Standard, as proposed, as an applicable technical standard for evaluating the hearing aid compatibility of wireless phones. The commenters unanimously support this proposal. Codification of the 2011 ANSI Standard serves the public interest by applying the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules to operations over additional frequency bands and air interface technologies. The new testing methodologies in the 2011 ANSI Standard will also greatly improve the measurement of potential hearing aid interference. The Bureaus find that adopting this new technical standard will not raise any major compliance issues or impose materially greater obligations with respect to newly covered frequency bands and air interfaces than those already imposed under the Commission's rules. The Bureaus also find no evidence that adopting the 2011 ANSI Standard will impose significant costs on manufacturers or service providers. If compliance costs increase significantly in the future, the Bureaus will evaluate any such future costs and address them as necessary in the Commission's ongoing hearing aid compatibility proceedings.

9. As set forth in the proposed rules in theSecond Further Notice,the new rules will permit new handset models to be tested for certification using either the 2007 or 2011 ANSI Standard. All existing grants of certification issued under the 2007 ANSI Standard, as well as any pre-2010 grants under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19, remain valid, and no existing handset models will need to be retested or recertified as hearing aid-compatible. This is reflected in the rules both as proposed and as adopted. Consistent with existing rules that do not permit a handset model to be certified partly under one version of the ANSI Standard and partly under another, manufacturers must test each new handset model either exclusively under the 2007 ANSI Standard or exclusively under the 2011 ANSI Standard both during and after the 12-month transition period.

10. While supporting adoption of the 2011 ANSI Standard, some commenters ask the Commission to provide additional guidance on certain testing techniques under the standard so that test equipment can be developed and the relevant tests applied. In particular, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Samsung) states that guidelines are required to facilitate use of the Modulation Interference Factor (MIF) testing technique. Similarly, some commenters contend that guidance is necessary to enable hearing aid compatibility testing under the 2011 ANSI Standard for Voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE) transmissions.1 The Bureaus anticipate that the manufacturers and standards bodies working with OET will be able quickly to develop guidance for the MIF testing techniques and for determination of the M rating for VoLTE transmissions. To the extent such guidance has not been issued, OET will work with manufacturers to the extent of its authority so that the manufacturers can provide test reports that sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the rules as required by Section 2.1033(d) of the rules. The Bureaus recognize, however, that it may take longer to develop guidance for testing the inductive coupling capability of VoLTE transmissions under the 2011 ANSI Standard. Accordingly, until such guidance is issued, OET will adapt its certification procedures so that manufacturers can use the 2011 ANSI Standard for these handsets during a 12-month transition period. The Bureaus further note that under the newly adopted rules, as an alternative to using the 2011 ANSI Standard, handsets introduced during the 12-month transition period may be tested under the 2007 ANSI Standard for their operations that are covered under that standard and treated as hearing aid-compatible only for those operations. Finally, because Section 2.1033(d) currently refers to the U-ratings that were used in early versions of ANSI Standard C63.19, the Bureaus take this opportunity to conform this rule to the terminology used in the 2007 and 2011 ANSI Standards. The Bureaus find good cause not to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on this rule change under Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), because the change is purely ministerial and necessary to conform the Commission's written rules to ANSI Standard C63.19.