The Ex-Im Bank published a document on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41885-41886) exempting portions of a system of records entitled “EIB-35—Office of Inspector General Investigative Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. The document incorrectly added § 404.24 to subpart B of 12 CFR part 404. Section 404.24 currently exists in subpart C. The instruction should have revised 404.24, not added it.

Accordingly, in rule FR Doc. 2012-17382 published on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41885-41886), make the following correction.

1. On page 41886, in the first column, amendatory instruction 2 is corrected to read as follows:

“2. Section 404.24 is revised to read as follows:”

On February 15, 2011, Tamarack Aerospace Group applied for a supplemental type certificate for installation of winglets and an Active Technology Load Alleviation System (ATLAS) on the Cirrus Model SR22 (serial numbers 0002-2333, 2335-2419, and 2421-2437). The Cirrus Model SR22 is a certified, single reciprocating engine, four-passenger, composite airplane.

The installation of winglets, as proposed by Tamarack, increases aerodynamic efficiency. However, the winglets by themselves also increase wing static loads and the wing fatigue stress ratio, which under limit gust and maneuver loads factors may exceed the certificated wing design limits. The addition of ATLAS mitigates the negative effects of the winglets by effectively aerodynamically turning off the winglet at elevated gust and maneuver loads factors.

The ATLAS functions as a load-relief system. This is accomplished by measuring aircraft loading via an accelerometer, and by moving a small aileron-like device called a Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS) that reduces lift at the tip of the wing. Because the ATLAS compensates for the increased wing root bending at elevated load factors, the overall effect of this modification is that the winglet can be added to the Cirrus wing without the traditionally required reinforcement of the existing structure. This is the first application of an active loads alleviation system on a part 23 aircraft and the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Tamarack Aerospace Group must show that the Cirrus Model SR22, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet A00009CH or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet A00009CH (Serial Numbers (S/Ns) 0002 through 2333, 2335 through 2419, and 2421 through 2437) are as follows:

In addition, if the regulations incorporated by reference do not provide adequate standards regarding the change, the applicant must comply with certain regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The FAA has determined that the Cirrus SR22 complies with the following sections of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-61 for the areas affected by the change.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the SR22 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the SR22 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 35 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

The SR22 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Winglets with an Active Technology Load Alleviation System (ATLAS) that incorporates a small aileron-like device called a Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS).

Tamarack has applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate to install a winglet and ATLAS. The ATLAS is not a primary flight control system, a trim device, or a wing flap. However, there is definite applicability to ATLAS for several regulations under part 23, Subpart D—Control Systems, which might otherwise be considered “Not Applicable” under a strict interpretation of the regulations. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer.

Special conditions are also necessary for the effect of ATLAS on structural performance. These special conditions are intended to provide an equivalent level of safety for ATLAS as intended by part 23, Subpart C—Structure, and portions of part 23, Subpart D—Design and Construction.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 23-12-01-SC for the Cirrus SR22 airplanes was published on May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28530). No comments were received and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the SR22 (S/NS 0002 thru 2333, 2335 thru 2419, and 2421 thru 2437). Should Tamarack Aerospace Group apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate Data Sheet A00009CH to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in theFederal Register; however, as the certification date for the Tamarack modified Cirrus SR22 is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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 April 2, 2012 (77 FR 19567). That NPRM proposed to correct anunsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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.

We are adopting a new AD for CHI Model 107-II and Kawasaki Model KV107-II and KV107-IIA helicopters. This AD requires replacing certain part-numbered bolts. The bolts are located in the forward and aft rotor upper collective pitch control assemblies. Upon failure, the yoke bolt head shears off, allowing shafts around the bolt to migrate out of place. If the shaft migrates fully out of place, the rotor pitch cannot be controlled. This AD is prompted by multiple failures of the affected bolts at low flight hours. These actions are intended to prevent failure of a bolt, excessive vibration, migration of the shafts, 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 designs.

CHI issued Service Bulletin No. 107-27-0005 (SB), Revision 0, dated April 26, 2012. The SB specifies replacing all bolts, part number (P/N) 107C2733-1 and P/N 107C2733-2, with bolts, P/N C07C2700-1. The SB also specifies modifying spare assemblies, daily inspections of the yoke bolt retaining nut, and recurring 35-hour inspections of the bolt.

This AD requires, before further flight, replacing all affected bolts with airworthy bolts, P/N C07C2700-1, and torquing the nut to 450-500 in-lbs. This AD also prohibits installing washer P/N A02C3112-13 with bolt P/N C07C2700-1, and installing bolt P/N 107C2733-1 and P/N 107C2733-2 on any helicopter.

The CHI SB requires a repetitive daily inspection of the yoke bolt retaining nut, and a repetitive 35-hour inspection of the bolts after replacement. This AD does not require those inspections. The SB also specifies modifying spare assemblies. This AD does not address parts that are not installed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 12 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD: Replacing the bolts will take 4 hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost $2,000. The total cost per helicopter is $2,340 and the total cost for the entire U.S. fleet is $28,080.

Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct a previously described known critical unsafe condition, which can adversely affect the structural integrity and controllability of the helicopter. 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 before further flight.

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.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron March 21, 2012 (77 FR 16488). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 16488, March 21, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 16488, March 21, 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 16488, March 21, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 129 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $21,930, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $1,625, for a cost of $1,880 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 16488, March 21, 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, orfederalism 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.

Able Engineering & Component Services (Able) received a report of a tail rotor pitch link with a spherical bearing that had migrated out of the bearing bore. Investigation by Able revealed that the migration resulted from the spherical bearing being improperly swaged during a repair process and that the affected parts were limited to those repaired after January 1, 2011. Able determined that an inspection of other tail rotor pitch links repaired after that date is necessary to determine their airworthiness and issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.: 2012-001, Revision IR, dfated March 7, 2012 (Able ASB).

On March 19, 2012, Eurocopter issued one ASB with multiple numbers: Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. BO105 LS-30A-013 for model BO-105LS A-3 helicopters; EASB No. BO105 LS A-3-STC-0654/3058-30A-001 for model BO-105LS A-3 Superlifter helicopters; EASB No. MBB-BK117-30A-115 for model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 helicopters; and EASB No. MBB-BK117 C-2-67A-016 for model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters, all Revision 0. The EASB specifies complying with the inspection described in the Able ASB.

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 these same type designs.

We reviewed the Able ASB, which identifies certain tail rotor pitch links (pitch links) that are affected by the improper swaging of the spherical bearings. The Able ASB describes procedures to remove the pitch links and visually inspect the spherical bearings with an 8X magnifying glass for a bearing that has not been swaged and will migrate out of the bearing bore. If a pitch link is discovered with a bearing not properly swaged, the Able ASB specifies removing the pitch link from service and returning it to Able Engineering.

This AD requires:

• Removing the pitch link from the helicopter and cleaning the spherical bearings.

• Applying hand pressure to the bearing faces and inspecting with an 8X or higher power magnifying glass for complete swaging of the bearing bore.

• If the pitch link has not been completely swaged, removing the pitch link and replacing it with an airworthy pitch link.

The service information requires returning unairworthy pitch links to Able Engineering; this AD does not. The Eurocopter ASB applies to the Model BO105 LS A-3 “Superlifter,” and this AD does not as that model is not type certificated in the U.S.

We estimate that this AD will affect 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry, and that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting each pitch link will require about 1.5 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total cost per helicopter of about $127 and a cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $16,510. If required, replacing a pitch link with an airworthy pitch link will require about 1.5 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, and required parts will cost $1,442, for a total cost per helicopter of about $1,569.

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 some of the corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.

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.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in theFederal Registeron February 22, 2012 (77 FR 10411). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive external phased-array ultrasonic inspections to detect cracks of the affected fuselage skin lap splices in Sections 41, 43, and 44, as applicable, and repair if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 10411, February 22, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested we add additional text to the end of paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 10411, February 22, 2012) stating “* * * unless all cracked material has been completely removed and the repair is a reinforcing repair that has been FAA approved to [Federal Aviation Regulations] 14 CFR 25.571 and 14 CFR 26.43 (c) or (d).” Boeing stated that reinforcing repairs which are FAA approved to 14 CFR 25.571 at the certification basis for the subject Model 777 airplanes and 14 CFR 26.43(c) or (d) must have been evaluated for damage tolerance, and would have the damage tolerance inspection requirements in place in order to maintain the safety of the airplane at the repaired area. Boeing asserted that the requirement to obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval for such repairs would therefore not be required to ensure the safety of the repaired airplane.

We disagree. The change proposed by Boeing would only require compliance for two certain regulations and would not require other necessary regulatory standards. The requirements defined in the existing AMOC delegation authority include other FAA regulations and manufacturer's design considerations beyond those listed on the airplane type certificate data sheet. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD affects 46 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 repair.

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 airworthiness directive (AD) AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in theFederal Registeron April 8, 2011 (76 FR 19710). That NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements, and the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require actions that were provided previously as optional actions, and would require a certain initial inspection to be accomplished for a revised AWL.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. Boeing supports the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011).

United Airlines (UAL) requested that paragraph (l) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) be revised to allow use of Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622N001-9; or Boeing TR 09-011, dated November 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9; to comply with the proposed requirements of that paragraph.

We infer that the commenter would like the AD to reference the current revision of the service information. We agree to revise this AD to refer to the most recent revision. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD (paragraph (l) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011), and also paragraphs (h), (l), (m), and (n) of this AD (paragraphs (h), (m), (n), and (o) of the NPRM, respectively) to reference Boeing TR 09-011, dated November 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9.

UAL requested that additional revisions of service information be included in paragraphs (s) and (t) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011). UAL noted in particular, the MPD revisions approved by the ACO after publication of AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008). Since paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of AD 2008-10-11 allow the use of a later revision of the MPD that is approved by the Seattle ACO without requesting an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), UAL believed that operators that used those later revisions after publication of AD 2008-10-11, without an AMOC, for the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of that AD would be in violation of the NPRM because they would not receive credit for using those revisions.

We agree that for paragraph (h) of this AD (the restated actions of AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008)), the following revisions of the MPD are acceptable. Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision December 2008; Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9; and Boeing TR 09-011, dated November 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9; are the acceptable revisions that have been approved after June 12, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-10-11). No AMOC approval is needed to use any of those three documents. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly, and also paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this AD (paragraphs (l), (m), (n), and (o) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) to reference all three MPD revisions that are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.

No change is necessary for paragraph (g) of this AD, because paragraph (k) of this AD (paragraph (l) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) (whichterminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD) has been revised to include those three MPD revisions.

Also, no change is necessary to paragraph (i) of this AD, because that paragraph does not reference service information. The paragraph clarifies that after accomplishing paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD (except as required by paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD respectively), no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) are acceptable unless approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.

Since we have included the MPD revision that was proposed as credit by paragraph (s) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) as an MPD revision that is acceptable for compliance with this AD, we have deleted paragraph (s) of the NPRM (and re-identified paragraph (t) of the NPRM as paragraph (r)(2) of this AD) from this AD.

We do not agree that any revision to paragraph (r)(2) of this AD (paragraph (t) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) is necessary. Paragraph (r)(2) of this AD gives credit for a certain revision of the MPD for paragraphs (m) and (n) of this AD (paragraphs (n) and (o) of the NPRM), which are not a part of the existing actions of AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008). We have not revised this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that wording in certain AWLs that refer to “later revisions” of component maintenance manuals (CMMs) be removed. UAL noted that the FAA removed references to “a later revision” of Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9 (referenced as Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, in AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008)), to be consistent with FAA policy and with Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. UAL stated that section 51.1(f) of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 CFR 51.1(f)) prohibits the incorporation by reference of future amendments or revisions of publications, and because specific revisions of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, are incorporated by reference into theFederal Register, UAL believed that the MPD should also omit language referring to future revisions of CMMs.

We disagree with the request. Paragraphs (g)(3) and (k)(3) (paragraph (l)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) of this AD do not require operators to comply with applicable AWLs, but instead, require operators to incorporate applicable AWLs into their maintenance program. Once those applicable AWLs are incorporated into the operators' maintenance programs, operators are in compliance with paragraphs (g)(3) and (k)(3) of this AD. Compliance with the condition defined in each AWL is required by section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)) as stated in Note 1 of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011). Because this AD does not mandate compliance with the AWLs, any documents specified in the AWLs are not incorporated by reference in theFederal Register, and therefore, section 51.1(f) of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 CFR 51.1(f)) does not apply. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested further clarification in regards to paragraphs (i), (l)(3), and (p) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011). UAL noted that certain AWLs contain reference to later revisions of component maintenance manuals (CMMs). However, paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM state that once certain AWLs are incorporated into the maintenance program, “no alternative inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless * * * approved as an AMOC * * *.” Given this restriction, UAL believes that as long as certain AWLs specify “later revisions” of certain documents, it would not be possible to comply with paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM. UAL also asked if every future revision of a CMM approved by the Seattle ACO would require separate AMOC approval to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM.

We agree to provide clarification. There is no conflict between the requirements of paragraph (k)(3) of this AD (paragraph (l)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) and paragraphs (i) and (o) of this AD. Paragraphs (i) and (o) (paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM) of this AD prohibit the use of an alternative inspection, inspection interval, or CDCCL unless it is approved as an AMOC. The intent of paragraphs (i) and (o) of this AD is to prohibit the use of an alternative AWL without AMOC approval, as each AWL defines an inspection, inspection interval, or CDCCL. If an operator desires to use an alternative AWL, such as an AWL defined in an MPD revision that is different from those specified in paragraphs (g)(3) and (k)(3) of this AD, that operator must obtain AMOC approval to use that alternative AWL, as required by paragraphs (i) and (o) of this AD. Once operators incorporate the AWLs required by this AD or alternative AWLs that have been approved as an AMOC into their maintenance program, they are in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(3) and (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable. After incorporation of the AWLs, operators are required to comply with each AWL by 14 CFR 91.403(c). Operators are in compliance with those AWLs as long as they use CMM revisions that have been approved by the Seattle ACO. Therefore, separate AMOC approval is not necessary to use CMM revisions that have been approved by the Seattle ACO. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that we consolidate paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) into a single paragraph. UAL stated that it found what it considers to be an overlap between paragraphs (i) and (p) of the NPRM. UAL suggested that consolidating the paragraphs would streamline the AD and reduce confusion for operators.

We disagree. Paragraph (i) of this AD is a part of the restatement of the existing requirements of AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008), and is for the restated requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Paragraph (o) of this AD (paragraph (p) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) is part of the new requirements of this superseding AD, and is intended to be effective once the revision required by paragraph (k) of this AD is done. We have not changed this AD in this regard. However, we have clarified paragraph (i) of this AD by noting that doing the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD is an exception to the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.

UAL requested that we consolidate paragraphs (j), (s), and (t) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) into a single paragraph. UAL requested thisaction for the convenience of providing operators a single paragraph to reference. In an example that UAL provided, UAL suggested combining paragraphs (j) and (s) of the NPRM into one sub-paragraph with the same effective date of June 12, 2008, and paragraph (t) of the NPRM as the other sub-paragraph with an effective date of “before the effective date of this AD.”

We partially agree. Paragraph (s) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) has been deleted as previously discussed. Paragraphs (j) and (t) of the NPRM can be consolidated. We have removed paragraph (j) of the NPRM, re-identified subsequent paragraphs, and relocated the information from paragraph (j) of the NPRM to paragraph (r)(1) of this AD. The information in paragraph (t) of the NPRM is now in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD.

UAL requested that we revise a sentence in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) that reads “After the effective date of this AD, only * * * may be used” to allow 6 months before requiring operators to use the current revision of the MPD when complying with the initial inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of the NPRM. UAL noted that paragraph (h) of the NPRM proposed to require use of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, immediately after the effective date of the AD, while paragraph (l) of the NPRM would have allowed 6 months to incorporate the Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, into the maintenance program. UAL is concerned about the effect that such a short compliance time could have on airplanes on which the operator started the initial inspection (using a previous revision of the MPD) before the effective date of the AD and completes the inspection after the effective date of the AD.

We agree to revise paragraph (h) of this AD to allow 6 months after the effective date of this AD before operators are required to do initial inspections using Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision December 2008; Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9; or Boeing TR 09-011, dated November 2010, to Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),” of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9. This change would make paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD more consistent with each other.

UAL stated that it could not confirm the existence of paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011).

We agree to provide clarification. Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD (paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)), along with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD (paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of the NPRM), are located within table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested the addition of a paragraph to the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) that would allow the use of an HSP that passed a functional test described in a manufacturer's CMM. UAL noted that paragraph (r) of the NPRM discusses AWL No. 28-AWL-22, which specifies that a new unit be used during replacement of the HSP. UAL stated that Goodrich's CMM stated that the HSP is not repairable, however, the inclusion of a functional test procedure seems to indicate that an HSP can be used if it passes the functional test.

We disagree. AWL No. 28-AWL-22 as specified in the Boeing 757 MPD Document revisions required by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD (paragraph (l)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011)) specifies the use of a new HSP. An operator's failure to comply with that AWL would be a violation of section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)). However, if an operator wants to incorporate an alternative AWL that allows for use of an HSP unit that passed a functional test, that operator may request an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph(s) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL asked why the FAA is proposing to supersede AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008) instead of revising that AD. UAL listed 18 revised ADs that address the same subject for different model airplanes. UAL stated that superseding an AD drives many AMOC requests and could also set up “compliance traps.”

We disagree. This AD requires new actions in addition to those originally required by AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008), while the other ADs that UAL listed do not require any additional action. When additional actions must be mandated, we supersede the existing AD instead of revising the AD. No change to this AD has been made in this regard.

We have re-designated Note 4 of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) as paragraph (k)(4) of this AD. We have also reviewed Note 4 of the NPRM and determined that the reference to paragraph (k) of this AD may be removed. Paragraph (k)(4) of this AD is intended to clarify that this AD does not require rework of components that had been maintained using acceptable methods before the revisions of the maintenance program, as originally required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008).

We have redesignated Note 1 of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) as paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, and paragraph (c) of the NPRM as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

We have revised the paragraph structure of paragraph (h) of this AD. Paragraphs (h), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) are reidentified as paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD, respectively. We have also revised the heading of table 1 of the NPRM for more orderly codification within theCode of Federal Regulations.

We have redesignated Notes 2 and 3 of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) as paragraphs (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, respectively.

We have revised certain headers throughout this AD.

We have revised the wording in paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2) of this AD (paragraphs (j) and (t) of the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011); this change has not changed the intent of these paragraphs.

We have corrected the definition of the term “MPD document” throughout this AD; this change does not affect the intent of any requirement in this AD.

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

•Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 19710, April 8, 2011).

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

There are about 990 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

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

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

We 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.

AFE reported two failures of a mast on an OH-58A+ and an OH-58C helicopter used in agricultural spraying operations. Investigation revealed that the mast failures were caused by fatigue cracking, which initiated from corrosion pitting found in the threaded section of the mast approximately 45 inches fromthe top of the mast. AFE issued Alert Service Bulletin: 2012-58-01, Revision 1, dated February 20, 2012 (ASB 2012-58-01), which specifies overhauling and inspecting the mast for any cracks, pitting, or corrosion by following the procedures in the latest revision of Aviation Unit and Intermediate Maintenance Manual TM55-1520-228-23. ASB 2012-58-01 further specifies replacing any mast with a crack, pitting, or corrosion beyond surface rust that is removed with a wire brush or steel wool in the threaded portion of the mast.

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.

This AD requires overhauling the mast and performing specific inspections for a crack, pitting, or corrosion in the threaded area of the mast and associated parts. If there is a crack, pitting, or corrosion, this AD requires replacing the mast with an airworthy mast. This AD also requires the operator to report any crack, pitting, or corrosion found during the inspections. The report must include the number of hours time-in-service (TIS) and calendar time since the last overhaul of the mast.

RDC and SJH helicopters are included in this AD because they have the same mast design and are operated similarly to the AFE fleet. This AD does not include the 1200 hour TIS repetitive inspections required by ASB 2012-58-01.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. We are considering a repetitive inspection for this unsafe condition. The planned inspection interval would allow sufficient opportunity for prior public notice and comment.

We estimate that this AD will affect 80 helicopters of U.S. Registry, and that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the mast and reporting the results will require about 20 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total cost of $1,700 per helicopter, and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $136,000. Replacing a cracked main rotor mast will require about 20 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, and required parts will cost about $11,891 for a total cost per helicopter of $13,591.

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 30 days.

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.

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

The arms embargo against Rwanda was initially imposed through United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 918 on May 17, 1994, and was continued through subsequent resolutions, including UNSCR 1011 on August 16, 1995. The embargo was implemented in the EAR on August 8, 1994 (59 FR 40235), most recently in § 746.8 of the EAR. The United Nations Security Council terminated the arms embargo against Rwanda on July 10, 2008, via UNSCR 1823. Accordingly, this rule removes the United Nations Embargo (UN) controls on Rwanda by removing Rwanda from Part 746. BIS also makes conforming changes related to the removal of UN controls on Rwanda in § 732.3, Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 and Supplement No.1 to Part 774 of the EAR.

One of the conforming changes is the removal of machetes from Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 0A988. Machetes were added to the CCL when BIS in 1994 (then called the Bureau of Export Administration) implemented the United Nations Security Council arms embargo against Rwanda by way of Executive Order 12918 (59 FR 40235 (Aug. 8, 1994)). Because this rule removes the UN controls imposed against Rwanda and because machetes were added to the CCL to address concerns with their use in Rwanda in particular, BIS is removing machetes from the CCL.

In this final rule, BIS also amends § 746.1(b) to require a license for the export or reexport of items controlled for “UN” reasons to countries subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes. Paragraph (b)(2) lists all the countries subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes. Paragraph (b)(3) states that, to the extent consistent with United States national security and foreign policy interests, and pursuant to revised paragraph (b) of § 746.1, BIS will not approve applications to export or reexport items with a UN reason for control to countries subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes if such authorizations would be contrary to the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Paragraph (b)(4) provides that the availability of license exceptions to countries listed in § 746.1(b)(2) is restricted to License Exception GOV § 740.11(b)(2)(i) and (ii).

The rule also clarifies the UN embargo provisions for Iraq and North Korea under the EAR by including cross-references to § 746.3 (Iraq) and § 746.4 (North Korea).

Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701et seq.) through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 12, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 50661 (Aug. 16, 2011)). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

This action is taken after consultation with the Secretary of State. BIS submitted a foreign policy report to the Congress indicating the imposition of new foreign policy controls on June 28, 2012.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the PRA. This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

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

4. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). This final rule implements U.S. multilateral commitments concerning United Nations Security Council arms embargoes. The sanctions against Rwanda were initially implemented in part to fulfill U.S. obligations to implement the United Nations Security Council's arms embargo against Rwanda. Consistent with the United Nations Security Council's actions lifting the arms embargo and U.S. obligations thereunder, BIS is removing the sanctions imposed against Rwanda under the EAR. In addition, in this rule, BIS amends the EAR to require a license to export or reexport certain items to countries subject to United Nations arms embargoes. To the extent consistent with United States national security and foreign policy interests, BIS will not approve such license applications if such authorizations would be contrary to relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. In light of United States commitments, BIS implements this approach pursuant to the existing licensing provisions and policies set out in Part 742 of the EAR and pursuant to revised § 746.1(b), which sets out countries subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes. No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601et seq.,are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form and is made effective immediately upon publication.

Accordingly, parts 732, 738, 746 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

OSHA is making the following correction in FR document number 2012-15030, appearing on page 37600 in theFederal Registerof Friday, June 22, 2012:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS LEYTE GULF (CG 55) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the CFR as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use either of the chemical substances contained in this final rule. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

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

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

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

EPA is finalizing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for two chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs and a TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The two chemical substances are identified as rutile, tin zinc, calcium-doped (PMN P-06-36; CAS No. 389623-01-2) and rutile, tin zinc, sodium-doped (PMN P-06-37; CAS No. 389623-07-8). The final SNURs on these substances are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent order. The final SNURs designate as a significant new use manufacture (including import) or processing in the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent order. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these two chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

Previously, in theFederal Registerissue of October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61566) (FRL-8880-2), EPA issued direct final SNURs on these two chemical substances (see §§ 721.10230 and 721.10231). However, EPA received notices of intent to submit adverse comments on these SNURs. Therefore,as required by § 721.160(c)(3)(ii), in theFederal Registerissue of December 5, 2011 (76 FR 75794) (FRL-9329-5), EPA withdrew the direct final SNURs on these two chemical substances and subsequently proposed SNURs using notice and comment procedures in theFederal Registerissue of December 28, 2011 (76 FR 81441) (FRL-9329-4). More information on the specific chemical substances subject to this final rule can be found in theFederal Registerdocuments announcing the direct final SNURs or the proposed SNURs. The record for the SNURs on these two chemical substances was established in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1075. That docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the direct final rule and this final rule including comments on those rules.

EPA received several comments on the proposed rule. A full discussion of EPA's response to these comments is included in Unit V. of this document. Based on these comments, EPA is issuing a modified final rule on these chemical substances that:

1. Revises the protection in the workplace and hazard communication provisions.

2. Retains the industrial, commercial, and consumer activities provisions.

In response to the comments, EPA is including in the regulatory text the following modifications:

• Revision to the protection in the workplace provision in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(1) to reflect a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) of 2.4 mg/m3.

• Revision to the hazard communication provision in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to reflect an NCEL of 2.4 mg/m3.

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

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

During review of the PMNs submitted for these two chemical substances, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the human health effects of the chemical substances. Based on these findings, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls was negotiated with the PMN submitter. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order. These final SNURs are issued pursuant to § 721.160. See the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1075 for the corresponding consent order. For additional discussion of the rationale for the SNURs on these chemicals, see Units II. and V. of this document.

EPA is issuing these final SNURs for specific chemical substances that have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:

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

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

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

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

Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory. Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet athttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the two chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

EPA received comments from numerous submitters on the proposed rules for rutile, tin zinc, calcium-doped (PMN P-06-36; CAS No. 389623-01-2) and rutile, tin zinc, sodium-doped (PMN P-06-37; CAS No. 389623-07-8). A summary and discussion of the comments received and the Agency's responses follow.

Comment 1:In the proposed SNUR, EPA clarified that it considers nanomaterials to include substances with a particle size less than 100 nanometers (nm) where d10 particle size presents the particle size as determined by laser light scattering at which 10 percent by weight of the substance measured is smaller. The commenter supports this approach based on the need for a threshold since solid particulate material will contain a distribution of particle sizes. The 10 percent threshold strikes a reasonable balance between being adequately protective of human health and recognizing practical limitations associated with analytical methods available for quantifying materials at or below such a threshold. The commenter supports using the weight-based threshold, as methods and instrumentation for performing weight-based particle size measurements are more widely available than techniques for performing measurements based on particle number. There are other important elements that should be included in any definition of a nanomaterial including recognizing that aggregates and agglomerates are not the same as the primary particles of which they are comprised and that many agglomerates may not disagglomerate readily in any medium.

EPA Response:In the proposed rule, EPA did not attempt to clarify what it considers to be a definition of a nanomaterial, although particle size of less than 100 nm is often used to describe such chemical substances. Based on information contained in the PMNs, EPA believes that the PMN submitter is not manufacturing or processing the PMN substances with a d10 particle size less than 100 nm. EPA also believes it is possible that these chemical substances could be manufactured or processed with a d10 particle size less than 100 nm. EPA proposed a new use in the SNURs for these two PMN substances to require notification if those chemical substances were manufactured or processed with a d10 particle size less than 100 nm. Upon notification of this new use, EPA would review the properties and assess any potential risks that were different from the chemical substances as reported in the PMNs. While EPA believes that the threshold and method used to measure particle size for these PMN substances is appropriate and protective of human health, EPA will consider different thresholds and methods in other TSCA actions, depending on the chemical substances being measured and available scientific knowledge and technology.

Comment 2:The PMN substances are not nanoscale substances and any concerns or regulatory requirements derived from concerns related to nanoscale materials are not pertinent to the PMN substances.

EPA Response:As described in the consent order, the basis for EPA's concerns for the PMNs is not whether the substances constitute nanoscale materials but rather the fact that they qualify under the new chemicals category for respirable, poorly soluble particulates, under the subcategory of titanium dioxide (seehttp://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chemcat.htm). The category document identifies that there is potential for respirability if workers handle material containing any particles less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. Based on information in the PMNs, workers are likely to be exposed to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. In addition, based on information contained in the PMNs, EPA believes that manufacturers and processors could use these chemical substances at particle sizes less than 100 nm. Accordingly, EPA has proposed new uses that would enable EPA to review any manufacture or processing of the PMN substance without the use of appropriate respiratory protective equipment or engineering controls, or at particle sizes less than 100 nm. The purpose of these notifications (i.e., SNUNs) is to allow EPA to review any new properties and assess any potential risks presented by the new use.

Comment 3:EPA's risk assessment stated there is no exposure expected to the PMN substances, according to the human health effects summary in the consent order. EPA determined that there can be no risk warranting regulation under the proposed rule, because of the statement that no absorption of the PMNs is expected via any route of exposure if the PMN substances are produced via the calcination method. The PMN substances can only be manufactured using the calcining process and there is no known alternative industrial process for making chemical substances such as the PMN substances. Based on review of EPA's risk assessment in the 5(e) consent order and the extensive experience of the Color Pigment Manufacturers Association (CPMA) members with similar products, there is no substantiation of potential risk in the record for the proposed rule or the necessity for any regulation of the PMN substances.

EPA Response:The human health effects summary, contained in Unit IV. (“EPA's Assessment of the Risk”) of the consent order does not address potential exposures to the PMN substances; workplace inhalation exposures are addressed in a separate exposure summary of the same Unit IV. The health effects summary does state, however, that if the PMN substances are calcined then EPA does not expect the PMN substances to be absorbed by any route of exposure. In addition, the health effects summary identifies concerns for potential lung effects from exposure to the PMN substances, according to the chemical category for respirable, poorly soluble particulates under the subcategory of titanium dioxide (seehttp://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chemcat.htm). There is concern for the potential lung effects when workers handle material containing particles less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. Based on information in the PMNs, workers are likely to be exposed to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. The concern for lung effects is not mitigated by calcination; the concern is independent of potential for absorption. In fact, because these insoluble particles are not absorbed, they remain in the lung longer than other particles, causing further inflammation and lung effects. As mentioned earlier in this response, the exposure summary in the consent order identifies potential inhalation to workers. Based on the potential hazard and exposure to workers, EPA concluded that the PMN substances may present an unreasonable risk of lung effects to exposed workers. The commenter did not provide any specific information regarding CPMA's extensive experience with similar products to refute EPA's risk finding for the PMN substances.

Comment 4:EPA should clarify that the PMN substances are not salts. It is incorrect for EPA to characterize these chemical substances as salts. EPA's health risk analysis based on structural analogs does not demonstrate a risk warranting regulation because the regulated substances do not exhibit the properties of the constituent metals and do not represent an unregulated dust exposure. Titanium dioxide is not an analog surrogate for the PMNsubstances. EPA's assessment should evaluate the risk of the finished crystal form of the PMN substances.

EPA Response:EPA is not characterizing the PMN substances as salts or as the constituent metals, and the structural analogy in the consent order was not based on analogy to salts or constituent metals. EPA's structural activity relationship (SAR) analysis was based on the category of respirable, poorly soluble particulates that cause lung effects as a result of inhaling particles (seehttp://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chemcat.htm).Titanium dioxide was chosen as the subcategory based on its physical characteristics as a poorly soluble particulate, and not any chemically-mediated toxicological properties. The risk assessment, as described in the response to comment 3, is consistent with the Agency's concerns that potential exposure to particles of the finished crystal form of the PMN substances may cause an unreasonable risk of lung effects.

Comment 5:EPA relied on a recommended exposure level (REL) from the draft National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Current Intelligence Bulletin: Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide as the source of the proposed NCEL of 1.5 mg/m3. Since the final NIOSH intelligence bulletin set a higher REL of 2.4 mg/m3, EPA should revise its risk assessment to incorporate this new information.

EPA Response:EPA agrees that using the REL of 2.4 mg/m3for titanium dioxide, from the final NIOSH bulletin, would be more appropriate. This document is located in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1075. In fact, paragraph (b)(2) of the NCEL of the consent order for the PMN substances contains an automatic sunset clause stating that the NCEL in the consent order would automatically and immediately be changed to the final REL for titanium dioxide issued by NIOSH. Accordingly, EPA will issue the final SNURs with a NCEL of 2.4 mg/m3, based on the final NIOSH REL for titanium dioxide. However, because EPA estimates that there are potential exposures greater than 2.4 mg/m3, EPA continues to find a potential risk of concern for the PMN substances.

Comment 6:These chemical substances are subject to existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs) for inorganic tin compounds. Given the existing applicable OSHA PELs, the proposed SNURs are duplicative and unnecessary regulation. The NCELs provisions in the section 5(e) order states that the NCEL and respirator requirements are automatically nullified if OSHA promulgates a PEL for the same substance. There is a separate OSHA standard, applicable to all inert dust particles, of 5 mg/m3. There is no need for EPA to require the development of additional and different regulatory monitoring techniques for the PMN substances because there are already analytical monitoring techniques developed for inorganic tin compounds and inert dust particles.

EPA Response:While the OSHA PEL for inorganic tin compounds would be applicable to the inorganic tin contained in the PMN substances, it does not apply to the PMN substances themselves. Based on information submitted in the PMNs, EPA considers the substances to be mixed metal oxide compounds. Previous comments made the argument that the constituent metals are not bioavailable and there should not be concern for exposure to bioavailable metals from the PMN substances. EPA agreed that it is not characterizing the PMN substances as metals and the basis of its risk assessment is not the constituent metals contained in the PMN substances. See EPA's response to comment 4. Therefore, the OSHA PEL for inorganic tin does not adequately address potential risks from the PMN substances. While there is an OSHA inert dust standard of 5 mg/m3, EPA finds there is still a potential risk for lung effects from exposures less than 5 mg/m3for the PMN substances. Paragraph (b)(2) of the NCEL of the consent order for the PMN substances does state, that if OSHA promulgates a PEL specifically applicable to the PMN substances then the respirator requirements and NCEL become null and void. This paragraph (b)(2) also states that the requirements of the consent order are not negated by any pre-existing OSHA PEL, such as the PEL for inorganic tin compounds cited by the commenters. Because OSHA has not promulgated a PEL specifically applicable to the PMN substances, the respirator requirements and NCEL requirements in the consent order for the PMN substances remain in effect. Neither the PMN submitter nor commenters have supplied any information on whether existing monitoring techniques used for inorganic tin compounds would be appropriate for use with the PMN substances. EPA has issued the consent order and will issue the final SNURs with the NCEL provisions to allow for review of any monitoring techniques for the PMN substances that would be used to demonstrate compliance with the exposure limits.

Comment 7:The costs and economic impacts of the rule are underestimated significantly. Customers may not use the PMN substances because of compliance costs. Manufacturers of the PMN substances will incur costs as a result of complying with the SNUR requirements, and costs associated with submitting a SNUN, including submitting toxicological testing prior to manufacture or import of the PMN substances for a significant new use.

EPA Response:The economic assessment developed by EPA for this rule estimates and discusses the potential costs identified by the commenter. The commenter did not supply any additional information disputing EPA's specific cost estimates or conclusions. Therefore, EPA will not change any of its cost estimates or conclusions. Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the SNURs do not require testing, and submission of a SNUN does not require submission of toxicological testing. The preamble to the proposed SNURs did recommend testing that could address potential risks EPA has identified for the PMN substances, and states that SNUN submitters can submit any other data to address potential risks. Anyone submitting a SNUN is strongly encouraged to submit information addressing potential risks, but specific testing is not required.

Comment 8: EPA's economic assumptions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not reflect the current market. Nearly identical structural analogs of the PMN substances already on the TSCA Inventory are produced by companies in the United States and abroad. The PMN substances are produced abroad and imported in finished articles.

EPA Response:The commenter did not supply any information on present or future significant new uses by small or large entities of the substances subject to the SNURs. Therefore, the basis for EPA's finding under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the promulgation of the SNURs will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will remain unchanged in the final rule.

Comment 9:The rule would prevent U.S. manufacturers from manufacturing and using the PMN substances in finished products while the rule would not prevent the use of the PMN substances outside the United States. Foreign manufacturers of finished products containing the PMNsubstances will be able to use the PMN substances and import them as part of articles exempt from TSCA reporting.

EPA Response:TSCA primarily addresses risks within the United States. The consent order and the SNURs do not prevent United States manufacturers from manufacturing and using the PMN substances in finished products. In fact, the consent order negotiated with the PMN submitter allows manufacture, subject to certain restrictions. Those restrictions are reflected in the SNURs. The SNURs exempt all manufacturers and processors from significant new use reporting once the PMN substances have been incorporated into a polymer, glass, dispersion, cementitious matrix, or a similar incorporation. This includes articles imported into the United States. For these uses, no significant exposures are expected. The consent order and the SNURs would only be applicable in the United States to manufacturers or processors of the PMN substances in particulate form. EPA issued the consent order and is issuing the SNURs to address potential worker exposures associated with manufacture and processing of the PMN substances that could result in a risk of lung effects.

Comment 10:There are economic and environmental benefits identified in the PMN submissions for these chemical substances. Specifically, the PMN substances are intended to replace pigments containing heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, which are associated with risks to human health and the environment.

EPA Response:While EPA agrees that it would be beneficial to replace pigments that contain lead and cadmium, EPA found that the potential unreasonable risks associated with the PMN substances warranted issuing a consent order and SNUR.

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

Any person who began commercial manufacture, import, or processing of the specific chemical substances for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed rule after the date of publication of the proposed rule must stop that activity before the effective date of this final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to meet all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses.

EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with these SNURs before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of this final SNUR for those activities.

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

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

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

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

EPA has determined that a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) in rats would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substances. To access this guideline, please to gohttp://www.epa.gov/ocsppand select “Test Methods and Guidelines.” This test may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substances. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

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

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

• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

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

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

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substances during the development of the direct final rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1075.

This final rule establishes SNURs for two new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs and a TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitledRegulatory Planning and Review(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMBand displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in theFederal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this final rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), to amend this table without further notice and comment.

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

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

On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this rule.

This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the economic analysis discussed in Unit IX. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitledFederalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS.

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. 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 NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timingrequirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this final rulemaking are listed below1 and in EPA's October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.2

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations, thus states were required to provide submissions to address sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for this new NAAQS. Tennessee provided its infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007. On March 27, 2008, Tennessee was among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because its infrastructure submission was deemed incomplete for elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008.See73 FR 16205. Infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) relate to a SIP addressing changes to its part C prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit program as required by the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule New Source Review (NSR) Update—Phase 2 Rule (hereafter referred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR Update) recognizing nitrogen oxides as a precursor for ozone in 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, among other requirements.See70 FR 71612, (November 29, 2005). Tennessee has since met the completeness requirements for 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) and these infrastructure elements were federally approved on March 14, 2012.See77 FR 14976.

On April 16, 2012, EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's December 14, 2007, infrastructure submission and proposed to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part, infrastructure sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.See77 FR 22533. CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to section 128 State Board requirements, requires at subsection (a)(1) that each SIP shall contain requirements that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders be subject to the described public interest and income restrictions. It further requires at subsection (a)(2) that any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements. In this action, EPA is taking two actions regarding the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements. First, EPA is finalizing its conditional approval for part of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the applicable section 128(a)(1) requirements. Second, EPA is approving the remaining part Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect the applicable section 128(a)(2) requirements.

On March 28, 2012, Tennessee submitted a letter of commitment to EPA to adopt specific enforceable measures related to 128(a)(1) to address current deficiencies in the Tennessee SIP as outlined in EPA's April 16, 2012, proposed rulemaking. This letter of commitment meets the requirements of section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. Failure to adopt these provisions into the Tennessee SIP within one year (by July 23, 2013) will result in today's conditional approval becoming a disapproval. Tennessee's March 28, 2012, letter can be accessed atwww.regulations.govusing Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. A summary of the background for today's final action is provided below. See EPA's April 16, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 22533 for more detail.

EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of one portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) specifically pertaining to section 128(a)(1) requirements. EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve, sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it pertains to section 128(a)(1). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. Tennessee, through TDEC, certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. EPA received no adverse comments on its April 16,2012, proposed approval of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, infrastructure submission and proposed conditional approval of one portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, addresses all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to section 128(a)(1) requirements. EPA has determined that Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA, with the exception of the CAA section 128(a)(1) requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

On March 28, 2012, Tennessee submitted a letter of commitment to EPA to adopt specific enforceable measures related to CAA section 128(a)(1) to address the current deficiencies in the Tennessee SIP related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as outlined in EPA's April 16, 2012, proposed rulemaking. As a result of Tennessee's March 28, 2012, submission, EPA has determined that conditional approval, specifically pertaining to the requirements of 128(a)(1), is appropriate because the State has explicitly committed to address current deficiencies in the Tennessee SIP related to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(k)(4).

EPA is conditionally approving the March 28, 2012, submittal with respect to the CAA requirement of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128(a)(1). Tennessee must submit to EPA by July 23, 2013, a SIP revision adopting specific enforceable measures related to CAA section 128(a)(1) as described in the State's letter of commitment described above. If the State fails to actually submit these revisions by July 23, 2013, today's conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under section 110(c). However, if the State meets its commitment within the applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, today's conditionally approved submittal will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the new submittal, Tennessee's infrastructure SIP will be fully approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved element in the SIP.

EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's March 28, 2012, submission because these submissions are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. With the exception of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to the section 128(a)(1) requirements, TDEC has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee.

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 21, 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. (Seesection 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28336), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of amendments to COMAR 26.11.19.11, Lithographic and Letterpress Printing. The amendments adopt EPA's CTG for lithographic and letterpress printing. The formal SIP revision (#11-09) was submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on December 15, 2011. Additional background information behind this SIP revision is discussed in detail in the NPR.

This SIP revision consists of amendments to COMAR 26.11.19.11 to adopt a new CTG for offset lithographic printers and letterpress printers, entitledControl Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing(seeEPA 453/R-06-002). A detailed summary of EPA's review of and rationale for approving this SIP revision may be found in the TSD for this action which is available in the docket. No public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revision which adopts the CTG standards for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing into the Code of Maryland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 21, 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 pertaining to the amendments of the Code of Maryland to adopt EPA's CTG for lithographic printing and letterpress printing, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2) of the CAA.)

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In this document the EPA is amending appendix IX to part 261 to reflect a change in the ownership and name of a particular facility. Today's notice documents the transfer of ownership and name change by updating appendix IX to incorporate the change in owner's name for the ConocoPhillips Billings, Montana Refinery. On May 3, 2012, the EPA was notified that ownership of the Billings, Montana Refinery had been transferred to Phillips 66 Company. Phillips 66 Company certified that the management and operation of the Billings Refinery has not changed due to the restructuring. This notice documents the change by updating appendix IX to incorporate a change in name.

These changes to appendix IX of part 261 are effective July 23, 2012. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. As described above, the change in ownership will not affect the refineries operations. Therefore, a six-month delay in the effective date is not necessary in this case. This provides the basis for making this amendment effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 5531(d).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in theFederal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act.This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act.The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

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

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act.This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission'sReport and Order,ET Docket No. 10-97, adopted March 22, 2012, and released March 23, 2012, FCC 12-33. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site atwww.fcc.gov.It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; emailFCC@BCPIWEB.COM.

1. TheReport and Ordermodifies part 15 of the rules governing the operation of Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) devices in the 1920-1930 MHz band (UPCS band) to promote more efficient use of the UPCS band and to facilitate the introduction of a new generation of unlicensed devices capable of supporting broadband connectivity using Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) technology. Specifically, the Commission eliminated the least-interfered channel monitoring threshold for UPCS devices and reduced the number of duplex system access channels that a UPCS device must define and monitor from 40 to 20 channels in order to use the least-interfered channel access method. These changes will provide UPCS devices, particularly those designed to transmit with wider bandwidths but that define fewer than 40 channels, access to more usable channels (i.e.,combined time and spectrum windows) than are permitted under the existing rules, and unleash innovative cordless broadband technologies in the UPCS band, while limiting the potential for causing interference to other devices. The Commission also modified the rules to remove outdated provisions and to make other minor updates.

2. The 1920-1930 MHz band is allocated to Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis and is designated for use by UPCS devices on an unlicensed basis. Currently, the primary use of the 1920-1930 MHz band is for unlicensed cordless telephones that operate under part 15 of the Commission's rules. The part 15 rules provide that the 1920-1930 MHz band may be used for both asynchronous (generally data) and isochronous (generally voice) UPCS devices, with maximum and minimum emission bandwidths of 2.5 megahertz and 50 kilohertz, respectively. UPCS devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz band may not cause harmful interference to authorized radio services and must accept any interference received.

3. To facilitate the sharing of spectrum in the UPCS band, the current rules require use of a “spectrum etiquette” that specifies a process for monitoring the time and spectrum windows that a transmission is intended to occupy for signals above a defined threshold (a “listen-before-transmit” protocol). To protect UPCS devices already using particular time and spectrum windows from transmissions from another device, each UPCS device must monitor the combined time and spectrum windows that it intends to use before beginning transmissions and to defer use or find other spectrum windows if the monitored signal level is above the threshold. Transmissions may commence with the same emission bandwidth in the monitored time and spectrum windows without further monitoring if no signal greater than 30 decibels (dB) above thermal noise is detected. Alternatively, if the UPCS system defines at least 40 duplex system access channels, a UPCS device may access, if available, time and spectrum windows with the lowest signal level below a threshold of 50 dB above thermal noise (henceforth referred to as the “least-interfered channel access method”). If the initially selected combined time and spectrum windows are unavailable, the UPCS device may either monitor and select different windows or seek to use the same windows after waiting a randomly chosen amount of time between 10 and 150 milliseconds.

4. On May 6, 2010, the Commission adopted aNotice of Proposed Rulemaking(UPCS Band NPRM) in this proceeding that proposed changes designed to allow UPCS devices to access additional usable channels. The Commission took this action in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the DECT Forum, an industry associationthat promotes digital cordless radio technology for short-distance voice and data applications. In theUPCS Band NPRM,the Commission proposed to increase the least-interfered channel monitoring threshold from 50 to 65 dB above thermal noise and sought comment on whether some alternative value or elimination of the threshold would be more appropriate. The Commission also proposed to reduce the number of channels that must be defined and monitored under the least-interfered channel access method from 40 to 20 channels. It additionally sought comment on removing §§ 15.303(b) and (e), 15.307, and 15.311 regarding coordination with UTAM, Inc., since the relocation of incumbent fixed services from the UPCS band is now complete. The Commission further sought comment on a number of proposed updates to the part 15 UPCS rules regarding measurement procedures and definitions. Eight parties filed comments in response to theUPCS Band NPRM;these parties all strongly supported the Commission's proposals. No parties filed reply comments.

5. The Commission decided to eliminate the 50 dB above thermal noise monitoring threshold for UPCS devices. Without this threshold, after monitoring the required minimum number of channels, UPCS devices may use available combined time and spectrum windows with the lowest signal level, rather than using only those windows with the lowest signal level below 50 dB above thermal noise. Coupled with a reduction in the number of channels from 40 to 20 that must be defined and monitored, elimination of this threshold will permit greater utilization of the UPCS band. For example, manufacturers could optimize cordless telephones for higher-density applications, such as office environments. These changes are also expected to encourage manufacturers to introduce innovative products and services using Internet protocol connectivity to combine access to broadband and telephony applications in a new generation of cordless devices.

6. First, the Commission concluded that the 50 dB above thermal noise least-interfered channel monitoring threshold for UPCS devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz band should be eliminated. Eliminating the least-interfered channel monitoring threshold will allow UPCS devices to use additional time and spectrum windows with higher signal levels, which will allow access to more usable time and spectrum windows than under the current rule, thereby increasing the flexibility for innovation, utilization, and efficiency of the UPCS band. Further, this change will not inhibit the ability of UPCS devices to access available time and spectrum windows. Moreover, eliminating, instead of just increasing the monitoring threshold, will provide manufacturers with the flexibility to produce UPCS systems that can operate with the maximum possible traffic capacity and thereby maximize the utilization of the UPCS band. The Commission agreed with commenters that a higher monitoring threshold would not result in an increase in interference due to the path-loss and propagation characteristics of existing UPCS deployments and because UPCS devices are designed to use minimal power at all times. Finally, the Commission noted that although the DECT standard, which is used in over 100 countries, including all European countries, defines an upper signal limit at which a channel is considered busy and should not be used, it has no upper power threshold on least-interfered channels, and it appears that devices are operating under rules similar to those that the Commission adopted in this proceeding without experiencing interference problems.

7. Without a predetermined maximum threshold, manufacturers will also have the flexibility to select an appropriate threshold in order to prevent harmful interference to other UPCS devices. The Commission expects that UPCS devices will continue to operate using the DECT standard, which includes a listen-before-transmit protocol, and that UPCS devices will continue to monitor the desired channels to avoid causing harmful interference to other UPCS devices. Thus, they will not interfere with each other once a device is transmitting on a channel. Because UPCS devices operate at relatively low power levels, two devices would need to be within less than 1 foot of each other to impact one another. Thus, the probability of interference occurring among UPCS devices operating without a monitoring threshold or between such devices and those operating under the existing monitoring threshold will remain low. Although eliminating the maximum monitoring threshold could, in some cases, result in an increased number of UPCS devices operating simultaneously in a given location, they would be operating with relatively low peak transmitter power and out-of-band emissions limits. Thus, relatively higher-power Advanced Wireless Service and Personal Communications Service devices (either fixed or mobile) receiving in the adjacent 1915-1920 MHz and 1930-1990 MHz bands, respectively, will not experience harmful interference in such cases.

8. Second, the Commission concluded that the minimum number of channels that must be defined and monitored under the least-interfered channel access method can be reduced from 40 to 20 channels without posing an additional risk of interference to adjacent band or in-band operations, nor inhibiting the ability of UPCS devices to access available channels. Reducing the required number of channels that must be defined and monitored to 20 channels will enable UPCS devices that define fewer than 40 channels (i.e.,use wider emission bandwidths) to use the least-interfered channel access method and access additional usable channels, and thereby encourage manufacturers to produce cordless products that can provide access to broadband technologies. This action will serve the public interest by promoting increased use of the UPCS band for advanced services and allowing state-of-the-art UPCS devices that can provide higher throughputs (i.e.,data rates) to operate under the least-interfered channel access method, thereby further improving the efficiency and utilization of the UPCS band, while maintaining equal access to the available spectrum on a shared basis for all users.

9. In addition, the Commission took several actions to update the rules in other ways. It modified the part 15 UPCS rules to reflect that UPCS devices no longer need to protect fixed microwave incumbents in the 1920-1930 MHz band and are no longer coordinated by UTAM, Inc. Because the rules to transition the 1920-1930 MHz band from incumbent fixed microwave operations to UPCS use sunset in 2005, there is no longer a need for § 15.307(a) and (c)-(h), which sets forth the expired coordination requirements. Furthermore, because UPCS devices are no longer coordinated by UTAM, Inc., the definitions in § 15.303(b) and (e) that were applicable when UPCS devices were either coordinatable or non-coordinatable and the UTAM Inc.-related labeling requirement in § 15.311 are no longer necessary. Thus, the Commission eliminated §§ 15.303(b) and (e), 15.307(a) and (c) through (h), and 15.311 of the rules.

10. The Commission maintained that each applicant for FCC equipment authorization of a UPCS-band device must be a participating member of UTAM, Inc. and retained the UTAM, Inc. membership requirement for UPCS-band device manufacturers in § 15.307(b). Under the relocationfunding plan approved by the Commission, UTAM, Inc., acting on behalf of future unlicensed PCS manufacturers in the 1910-1930 MHz band, paid to relocate or agreed to share the costs to relocate incumbent services in the band, and future band entrants would reimburse it for their share of those incurred costs. UTAM, Inc. informed the Commission that it has outstanding contractual liabilities from clearing the 1910-1930 MHz band of incumbent microwave stations. Although UTAM, Inc. expects that the cost-sharing reimbursement(s) that it will eventually receive from the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) licensee(s) of the 1915-1920 MHz band will enable it to pay these outstanding liabilities, it must remain in existence until these liabilities are paid. UTAM, Inc. submitted that for it to remain in existence, the Commission cannot eliminate the membership requirement because membership fees are its sole source of operating revenue. UTAM, Inc. argued that if the membership requirement were eliminated, it would inequitably place the costs of maintaining UTAM, Inc. on existing members, thereby undermining the original purpose of § 15.307(b) to equitably distribute the costs of clearing the 1910-1930 MHz band across the manufacturers producing devices that operate in the band. The Commission determined that cost sharing was integral to clearing the UPCS band of incumbent services so new unlicensed devices could be introduced in the band. UTAM, Inc. made a persuasive case that it had incurred obligations, as a result of the UPCS band clearing, that have not been satisfied. The Commission concluded that, if it were to eliminate the membership requirement, there would be no mechanism to ensure that outstanding cost sharing obligations are satisfied. TheUPCS Band NPRMproposed no alternative that would equitability distribute these obligations among all manufacturers of equipment in the band, including those who would introduce new products in the band in the future. For these reasons, the Commission decided to maintain the UTAM, Inc. membership requirement for UPCS-band device manufacturers contained in Section 15.307(b).

11. The Commission also corrected the part 15 UPCS rules to make them consistent with previous Commission decisions affecting these rules. Specifically, it removed the definition in § 15.303(i) that was applicable when asynchronous and isochronous operations were in separate sub-bands; amended § 15.319 to specifically state that both asynchronous and isochronous operations are permitted in the 1920-1930 MHz band, consistent with the decision in theAWS Sixth R&O;revised § 15.323 to correct a typographical error in the second sentence of paragraph (a) and corrected paragraphs (d) and (e) to reference “bands” instead of “sub-bands.” In addition, the Commission amended §§ 15.31(a)(2) and 15.38(b)(12) of the rules to reference the latest version of the ANSI C63.17-2006 standard by which UPCS devices must be measured for compliance with the requirements in part 15 Subpart D of the rules.

12. To help ensure that the UPCS device rules continue to reflect the most appropriate industry standards, the Commission delegated to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), the authority to approve for use new versions of the ANSI C63.17 standard for methods of measurement of the electromagnetic and operational compatibility of UPCS devices to the extent that the changes do not raise major compliance issues. At the same time, the Commission recognized the necessity to provide opportunity for notice and comment on any changes or modifications that could affect compliance with our regulations. Therefore, in cases where major changes have been made in this standard that could affect compliance, the Commission will initiate an appropriate rulemaking proceeding to consider adoption of updated versions of the ANSI C63.17 standard.

13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in theNotice of Proposed Rulemaking(Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS)Band NPRM) in ET Docket No. 10-97.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in theUPCS Band NPRM,including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

14. In thisReport and Order,the Commission took steps to improve the operation of unlicensed Personal Communications Services (UPCS) devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz band (known as the UPCS band), while limiting the potential for in-band and adjacent-band interference and maintaining equal access to the available spectrum on a shared basis for all users.

15. In thisReport and Order,the objectives of the Commission were to improve the utilization of the UPCS band by allowing access to additional usable time and spectrum windows whose use is restricted under the current rules, to reduce infrastructure costs through allowing a greater density of UPCS devices to be used with fewer base stations, and to allow UPCS devices that use wider bandwidth channels, but define and monitor fewer than 40 channels, to use the UPCS least-interfered channel access method and access additional usable time and spectrum windows. Specifically, the Commission eliminated the 50 dB above thermal noise signal threshold that UPCS devices must monitor when using the least-interfered channel access method. Under this method, UPCS devices would survey the required minimum number of channels and use the combined time and spectrum windows with the lowest signal level, instead of using only the windows with the lowest signal level below 50 dB above thermal noise. The Commission also reduced from 40 to 20 channels the number of channels a UPCS device must define and monitor in order to use the least-interfered channel access method. In addition, thisReport and Orderupdated the part 15 UPCS rules to reflect that UPCS devices no longer need to protect incumbent fixed microwave radio stations in the 1920-1930 MHz band and are no longer coordinated by UTAM, Inc., and to make them consistent with previous changes to the rules.

16. No public comments were received in response to the IRFA in the UPCS Band NPRM.

17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number ofsmall entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.5 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.6

18. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.7 A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”8 Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.9 The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”10 Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.11 The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.”12 Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

19. The changes adopted in this Report and Order affect fixed service (FS) stations licensed under part 101 of our rules, UPCS stations, as well as wireless equipment manufacturers and frequency coordinators.

Fixed Microwave Services.Fixed microwave services include common carrier,13 private operational-fixed,14 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.15 At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees.16 The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have no more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.

Unlicensed Personal Communications Services.As its name indicates, UPCS is not a licensed service. UPCS consists of intentional radiators operating in the frequency band 1920-1930 MHz that provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary fixed communication services to individuals and businesses. TheReport and Orderaffects UPCS operations in the 1920-1930 MHz band; operations in those frequencies are given flexibility to deploy both voice and data-based services. There is no accurate source for the number of operators in the UPCS. Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within the new, broad, economic census category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).17 Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded category of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.”18 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.19 Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.20 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

Wireless Equipment Manufacturers.The industry comprises businesses primarily engaged in manufacturing radios and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.21 In this category, the SBA has deemed a business manufacturing radio and television broadcasting equipment, wireless telecommunications equipment, or both, to be small if it has fewer than 750 employees.22 For this category ofmanufacturing, Census data for 2007 show that there were 919 firms that operated that year. Of those establishments, 531 had between 1 and 19 employees; 240 had between 20 and 99 employees; and 148 had more than 100 employees.23 Since 771 establishments had less than 100 employees, and since only 148 had more than 100 employees, the vast majority of manufacturers in this category would be considered small under applicable standards.

Frequency Coordinators.Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to spectrum frequency coordinators. Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within the new, broad, economic census category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).24 Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded category of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 25 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.26 Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.27 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

20. ThisReport and Orderallows additional flexibility for UPCS devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz band by eliminating the signal threshold that a UPCS device must monitor when using the least-interfered channel access method. In addition, theReport and Orderreduces from 40 to 20 channels the number of channels that a UPCS device must define and monitor to use the least-interfered channel access method. This item does not contain any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.28

22. The Commission's principal objective in this proceeding was to increase the efficiency and utilization of the UPCS band. By eliminating the signal threshold that a UPCS device must monitor under the least-interfered channel access method, we allow UPCS devices to access additional usable combined time and spectrum windows in the 1920-1930 MHz band that are restricted from use under the current rules. The Commission's decision to reduce from 40 to 20 channels the number of channels a UPCS device must define and monitor to use the least-interfered channel access method will enable UPCS devices that can provide advanced cordless technologies and higher data rates to use the least-interfered channel access method and access additional usable time and spectrum windows, if available. Together, these changes will increase the utilization and efficiency of the UPCS band and promote the introduction of innovative products and services using Internet protocol connectivity to combine access to broadband and telephony applications in a new generation of cordless devices. Elimination of the least-interfered channel monitoring threshold will also allow manufacturers to design their devices based on density of devices, rather than range, depending on the needs of users, thereby allowing more UPCS devices to operate within close proximity to one another, which will reduce the infrastructure costs for a UPCS system. Finally, the Commission's decision to eliminate rather than just increase the least-interfered channel monitoring threshold will provide manufacturers with the flexibility to produce UPCS systems that can operate with the maximum possible traffic capacity, which will maximize the utilization of the UPCS band.

23.Report to Congress:The Commission will send a copy of theReport and Order,including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.29 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of theReport and Order,including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

24. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

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

26. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302a, 303(e), 303(f), and 307, that thisReport and Orderin ET Docket No. 10-97 is herebyadopted,and Part 15 of the Commission's rules ISamendedas set forth in Final Rules effective August 22, 2012.

27. The Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), isdelegated authorityto approve for use new versions of the ANSI C63.17 standard for methods of measurement of UPCS devices to the extent that the changes do not raise major compliance issues.

28. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,shall senda copy of thisReport and Order,including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 15 to read as follows: