We have received reports of premature fatigue cracks found in the left and right forward (main) spar wing-to-fuselage attach fittings on M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 and SA227 airplanes. Each airplane is equipped with two attach fittings on the forward (main) spar and two on the aft spar on the left and right side of the airplane. An owner/operator of five of the affected airplanes had the left and right forward (main) spar wing-to-fuselage attach fittings inspected, and all five airplanes had cracks in at least one of the attach fittings. On the 5 airplanes, a total of 20 left and right forward (main) spar wing-to-fuselage attach fittings were inspected; 7 of those were found with cracks. The cracks found emanate from the end pad fastener holes to the free edge of the pad and in the fillet radii of the upper outboard corner on both fitting halves.

M7 Aerospace LLC has included inspection of the aft spar attach fittings in the service information since they are similar to the forward fittings in design and experience equivalent load cycles.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the wing-to-fuselage attach fitting, which could cause the wing to separate from the airplane.

We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series Service Bulletin 226-53-016, dated July 27, 2012, with Supplement A—SB 226-53-016, dated June 22, 2012; SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-010, dated July 27, 2012, with Supplement A—SB 227-53-010, dated June 22, 2012; and SA227 Series Service Bulletin CC7-53-006, dated July 27, 2012, with Supplement A—SB CC7-53-006 dated June 22, 2012. The service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the left and right forward (main) and aft spar wing-to-fuselage attach fittings for cracks and replacing any cracked fitting.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This AD also requires sending certain inspection results to the FAA.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving noticeand comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the wing-to-fuselage attach fittings could cause the fitting to fail, which could result in wing separation from the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include the docket number FAA-2012-0917 and Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-030-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 330 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in theFederal Registeron April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23637). That NPRM proposed to require removal and replacement of the 1st stage HPT seal support and inspection of the 1st stage HPT air seal ring.

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

Commenter The Boeing Company supports the contents of the proposed AD (77 FR 23637, April 20, 2012) as written.

FedEx Express (FedEx) requested that the AD include credit for previous compliance.

We agree. We added “Comply with this AD the next time the HPT module is removed from the engine, unless already done” to paragraph (e) of the AD.

FedEx requested that we clarify that the required removal and inspections occur when the part is completely disassembled and at the piece-part level.

We do not agree. Removal of the 1st stage HPT seal support and inspection of the 1st stage HPT air seal ring are required when the HPT module is removed from the engine, which is not necessarily when the parts are at the piece-part level. Performing the actions the next time the HPT module is removed is required to maintain an acceptable level of safety for the fleet. We did not change the AD.

Lufthansa Technik AG requested that we add the P/N of the 1st stage HPT air seal ring that requires inspection to paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed AD (77 FR 23637, April 20, 2012). The commenter states that there are two air seals in this area of the engine and clarification would help avoid confusion over which one requires inspection.

We agree. We revised paragraph (e)(2) of the AD to include 1st stage HPT air seal ring, P/N 50L664.

Martinair requested that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD (77 FR 23637, April 20, 2012) be changed from “* * * the next time that the engine is separated at the M-flange and the HPT module is removed from the engine” to “* * * the next time the HPT module is removed from the engine.” The commenter states that the wording is confusing and may be interpreted that one is allowed to separate the engine at the M-flange, without intending to remove the HPT module from the engine, and therefore the support would not require replacement.

We agree. Including reference to the M-flange is redundant and not required, since the M-flange must be separated for the HPT module to be removed from the engine. We changed paragraph (e) of the AD to “comply with this AD the next time that the HPT module is removed from the engine.”

Pratt & Whitney (P&W) requested that the AD reference the latest versions of service bulletins (SBs) PW4ENG 72-721 and PW4G-100-72-166 because they were revised since the proposed AD (77 FR 23637, April 20, 2012) was published.

We disagree. The service information is only included as related information and is not incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify a revision level and date of the service information in the AD. The proposed AD did include the revision level and date, but we modified the AD to remove those details.

Martinair, United, and P&W requested that the P/Ns of the 1st stage HPT seal support be changed because the 1st stage HPT seal support P/N is not generally tracked by itself, although the assembly P/N is. One commenter recommended mandating full incorporation of P&W SBs PW4ENG 72-721 and PW4G-100-72-166, while another commenter recommended including the assembly P/Ns.

We partially agree. We agree that the assembly P/Ns should be included for clarity because the 1st stage HPT seal support is not generally tracked by itself. The assembly includes the support and the mating brush seal. Even though they are sold as sets and generally tracked together, it is important to note that the unsafe condition has been identified on the HPT seal support and not the brush seal. We disagree that the SBs should be incorporated by reference because there are multiple acceptable methods of performing the actions required by the AD. We changed paragraph (e)(1) of the AD to “Remove the 1st stage HPT seal support, P/N 55K601 (contained within assembly P/N 55K602-01) or P/N 50K532 (contained within assembly P/N 50K530-01), from service and replace it with a serviceable 1st stage HPT seal support.”

United requested that we revise the costs of compliance because the latest parts cost is $48,695, not $45,723, as stated in the proposed AD (77 FR 23637, April 20, 2012).

We agree. We included the latest parts costs in the Costs of Compliance paragraph of the AD.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that, other than the updated parts cost, these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 446 P&W PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours to perform the removal and replacement of the 1st stage HPT seal support, and the removal, inspection, and replacement if necessary of the 1st stage HPT air seal ring. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $48,695 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $21,831,700.

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, and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in theFederal Registeron November 14, 2011 (76 FR 70377). That NPRM proposed to require adding design features to detect electrical faults, to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank, and to ensure that a fuel pump's operation is not affected by certain conditions.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) to exclude airplanes from which auxiliary fuel tanks have been removed, and to add certain airplanes equipped with a center wing fuel tank. Boeing stated that the system safety assessments (SSAs) of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) concluded that design changes were required on all auxiliary fuel tanks on Model DC-9, MD-80, and MD-90 airplanes, and on the center wing fuel tank on Model MD-80 and MD-90 airplanes. American Airlines (American) concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.

We agree to limit the applicability of this AD to affected airplanes equipped with center wing fuel tanks and Boeing OEM-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. We also agree that airplanes on which auxiliary fuel tanks have been removed are not subject to the requirements of this AD. We have revised paragraph (c) in this final rule accordingly.

Boeing and TDG Aerospace requested that we provide justification for the removal of pump nuisance trip relative to the 100,000-hour MTBF reliability requirements to mitigate the ignition prevention unsafe condition. The commenters asserted that the 100,000-hour MTBF reliability requirement is not a contributing factor to the ignition source unsafe condition for design changes mandated by the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011). American concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.

We agree with the request. The MTBF of the component will be addressed in the design change package provided for certification to satisfy the criteria for compliance with the requirements of this AD. We have accordingly removed paragraph (g)(3) in this final rule.

Boeing claimed that the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) was too broad in its descriptions of the unsafe failure modes. Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM to define the failure modes that would require corrective action as electrical faults that are “capable of burning through the pump housing's explosion-proof boundaries” (instead of those that “can cause arcing and burn through the fuel pump housing,” as specified in the NPRM). Boeing asserted that this clarification would ensure that the corrective actions would target only the potential fuel tank ignition sources identified during the SSAs, by identifying only those fuel pump electrical faults and fuel pump dry-running conditions capable of developing a fuel tank ignition source. American concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.

We disagree with the request. Narrowing the failure conditions to certain types of failures or certain explosion-proof pump boundaries would limit the application of a broaderarray of ignition prevention solutions. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) specified that the new pump shutoff system must shut off each pump no later than 60 seconds after the fuel tank is emptied. Noting that the SFAR 88 SSAs recommended minimizing dry-running time but provided no specific dry-running time limit, Boeing requested that we remove the 60-second restriction. Boeing suggested basing dry-running time limits on the risk of developing a fuel tank ignition source threat by the affected designs, and added that the pump shutoff design feature must balance that risk against adding to crew workload to correct nuisance pump shutoffs in a near-empty fuel tank. Boeing noted that the FAA has approved auto-shutoff timers on other airplane designs that may allow pumps to run longer than 60 seconds after a fuel tank was emptied. American concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.

We do not agree to remove the 60-second pump shutoff restriction. The intent of this AD is to mandate that fuel pumps be shut off after fuel tanks empty to prevent pump dry running. The FAA has mandated a 15-second shutoff time on other applications, and has determined that a 60-second shutoff time is not unreasonable in this case. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing noted that the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) would not mandate airworthiness limitations such as critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) and/or repetitive inspections or functional checks for the proposed changes. Boeing requested that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to require operators to comply with any related airworthiness limitations. American concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.

We disagree with the request to mandate airworthiness limitations. CDCCLs for this design are not defined yet and will be included in the certification approval, as required under paragraph (g) of this AD. We have removed Note 1 in this final rule, but have otherwise not changed the AD regarding this issue.

American requested that we delay issuing the final rule pending the release of service information associated with the design features proposed by the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011). American indicated that additional time is necessary to allow operators time for reviewing the modification options, planning, ordering modification parts, and completing the required work during a heavy maintenance check.

We disagree with the request. Delaying issuance of this AD would have adverse safety implications. We anticipate that FAA-approved design solutions will be available in sufficient time for operators to comply with the AD within 60 months. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

TDG Aerospace requested that we clarify the term “preclude” as used in the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) in paragraph (g)(2): “The pump shutoff system design must preclude undetected running of a fuel pump in an empty tank, after the pump was commanded off manually or automatically.” TDG Aerospace considered “undetected running of a fuel pump” a significant latent failure condition, as defined by FAA Advisory Circular 25.981-1C, “Fuel Tank Ignition Source Prevention Guidelines,” dated September 19, 2008 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2025_981-1.pdf). TDG therefore requested that we confirm that use of the word “preclude” is done in the context of the allowable period of latency for significant latent failure conditions (i.e., one flight cycle). The commenter did not justify or further explain the request.

We agree that the word “preclude” is consistent with failure latency period equal to one flight accommodated in paragraph 10.c.(3) of FAA AC 25.981-1C. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

American requested that we approve for compliance with the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) the installation of a certain universal fault interrupter that American alleges will adequately address the unsafe condition. American stated that the functionality of this modification has been demonstrated and approved as equivalent or exceeding the protection provided by that of a standard ground fault interrupter (GFI) relay previously approved for AD 2011-18-03, Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26, 2011); and AD 2011-20-07, Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710, September 30, 2011).

We disagree with the request. Those parts have not been approved for these airplanes. The referenced ADs apply to airplanes not affected by this AD, and do not address the same unsafe condition identified in this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) fully supported the proposed requirements of the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011), and requested an additional design feature that would notify the flight crew when the fuel pump has been automatically shut off if an electrical anomaly is detected or if the fuel tank is empty.

We disagree with the request. When the fuel pump is automatically shut off because of an electrical anomaly, the flight crew will be unable to take any further action to start up the pump, so notifications of this condition to the flight crew would serve no purpose. Electrical failures that automatically shut off the pump are logged for maintenance action after landing to safely restart the pump. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing requested that we revise the cost estimates specified in the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) to reflect updated fleet size information. American concurred with this request.

We have reviewed the fleet information provided by Boeing, and have revised the estimated costs accordingly in this final rule.

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 70377, November 14, 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 70377, November 14, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 809 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On March 9, 2012, at 77 FR 14310, theFederal Registerpublished our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Eurocopter AS350 B, BA, D, B1, B2, and B3 helicopters with a single hydraulic power system and forward (pitch) servo-control hydraulic hoses part number (P/N) 704A34-412-033 (other reference manufacturer's part number (MP/N) 675-102-05-01) or P/N 704A34-412-035 (other reference MP/N 675-102-06-01) installed. That NPRM proposed to require installing protection sleeves over certain forward servo-control hydraulic hoses. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent the forward servo-control hydraulic hoses from becoming damaged and leaking hydraulic fluid that could ignite in flight. Such an ignition could result in loss of M/R control, power loss, propagation of fire, structural damage, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2011-0033, dated March 1, 2011 (AD 2011-0033), to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter helicopters. EASA advises that an in-flight fire in the main gearbox compartment occurred on an AS350B2 helicopter. The fire was “caused by ignition of hydraulic fluid leaking from a hydraulic hose, which had been damaged following an electrical fault in a circuit located in the compartment that is not fire protected. An in-flight fire in the main gearbox compartment during a continued flight, when undetected or if a landing could not be performed immediately, can result in loss of hydraulics, shutdown of the engine because of fire effects, and damage to the Main Rotor (MR) control system.” This condition, if not prevented, could lead to loss of M/R control, power loss, structural damage, propagation of fire into the cabin or other compartments, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. For these reasons, AD 2011-0033 requires installation of protection sleeves on the affected hydraulic hoses.

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

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 29.00.13, dated July 26, 2010, which specifies installing two siliconed glass wool sleeves over both forward main rotor servo-control hydraulic hoses. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2011-0033 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We estimate that this AD will affect 695 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that operators will incur the following costs to comply with this AD:

Disconnecting the servo control hoses, installing the protective sleeves, reconnecting the hoses, and testing for interference requires one work hour at an average labor rate of $85 per hour. Required parts cost $212, for a total cost of $297 for each helicopter. Based upon these costs, we estimate a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $206,415.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62667). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the floor panels; removing drains; installing floor supports, floor drain trough doublers, drain troughs, and drains; and sealing and taping the floor panels.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing stated that it has reviewed the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) and concurs with the contents of the proposed rule.

UPS stated it believes the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) is unnecessary and increases the economic burden on operators because the unsafe condition of water leaking into the MEC is already addressed in AD 2011-16-06, Amendment 39-16764 (76 FR 47427, August 5, 2011). UPS noted that an intact MEC drip shield should prevent water from leaking onto the electronic and electrical equipment, thereby eliminating the need for additional rulemaking.

UPS also noted that it finds the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) problematic because it establishes an AD-mandated configuration for floor panel sealing in the nose section of Model 747-400BCF and 747-400F airplanes that is different from the floor sealing criteria for the center and aft sections of the same airplanes.

We do not agree with the request to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011). While we recognize that most of the airplanes affected by this AD are also affected by AD 2011-16-06, Amendment 39-16764 (76 FR 47427, August 5, 2011), water intrusion into the MEC addressed by the NPRM is in locations and by means different than those addressed by AD 2011-16-06. AD 2011-16-06 addresses water intrusion that migrates through cracked drip shields into the exhaust plenum and the MEC, and affects stations 117 and 118 for certain Model 747-400BCF and 747-400F airplanes. The NPRM addresses water intrusion through main deck panels, fasteners and floor fittings, and affects stations 210 and 530 for certain Model 747-400BCF and -400F airplanes.

We found the safety risk to be sufficient enough to require a specific floor sealing criteria to the affected areas. While a possible loss of uniform floor sealing criteria throughout the airplane may result, this AD action is necessary to adequately address the stated unsafe condition to the vulnerable areas. Operators seeking to establish more uniform floor panel sealing criteria may submit a request for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as specified in paragraph (h) of the AD. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

In addition, UPS stated that the probability for water intrusion on the forward section of Model 747-400BCF airplanes is overstated because these models do not have a nose cargo door like Model 747-400F airplanes. Therefore, Model 747-400BCF airplanes are not as susceptible to moisture entering the forward area of the main deck cargo compartment during cargo loading in adverse weather conditions.

We do not agree. Both water intrusion safety concerns were studied separately based on reports submitted from multiple operators. The data were reviewed based on the location and causes of the water intrusion. Based on the frequency of reported failures, severity of outcome, and airplane usage, both studies showed an unacceptable and unsafe condition if left uncorrected. Addressing only one source of water intrusion neither precludes nor diminishes the probability of the other. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

UPS also stated that proper ground operational procedures will significantly reduce water accumulation in the nose area, either through the main entry door or on pallets or containers.

We infer that UPS requested withdrawal of the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) in favor of revised ground operational procedures. We do not agree that revising operational procedures to avoid the identified unsafe condition is a consistent or reliable method in precluding what is inherently a safety risk through design. In determining a corrective action, Boeing and the FAA agreed that a design solution, instead of an operational solution, provides the best method to address the identified unsafe condition. No change to the final rule is necessary.

UPS also stated that Figures 18 and 23 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3586, dated November 12, 2010, specify that different materials be used in lieu of those called out in Section 53-21-02 of the Boeing Model 747-400 AMM. UPS stated that by not allowing operators to use the AMM, the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) would put the UPS mechanics in an untenable situation. Mechanics following AMM procedures in the nose area of these two airplanes would unknowingly be altering an AD-mandated configuration.

We do not agree because an AD-mandated configuration always takes precedence over AMMs. When there is a conflict between an AD requirement and service document, the operator must always comply with the requirements of the AD, as explicitly stated in the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR 39.27. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

UPS noted that it and other operators have developed improved alternative floor panel sealing procedures based on years of operational experience with cargo aircraft. UPS stated that the NPRM (76 FR 62667, October 11, 2011) would mandate a Boeing floor sealing procedure that appears optimized for passenger aircraft flooring, which is not as effective as the procedures UPS uses today. UPS noted that this situation creates more of a regulatory problem with maintaining an AD-mandated condition than a safety of flight condition, as there are many ways to adequately seal the floor panels to prevent moisture intrusion. UPS noted that obtaining an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval for a floor sealing procedure presents another undue regulatory burden on operators.

We recognize the different methods operators currently use for floor panel sealing procedures to mitigate this safety concern. However, the frequency of failures reported when using these different methods underscores the importance of providing an acceptable method for operators to follow in reducing the safety risk. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of the final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that alternative method of sealing floor panels to prevent moisture intrusion would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

UPS submitted the following list of technical errors found in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3586, dated November 12, 2010, and requested that a revision to this service information be issued to address them.

• The fastener quantities specified in the fastener table in figure 7 are incorrect.

• Figure 17 specifies installing the modified floor panels with new fasteners, followed by figure 18, which specifies removing and reinstalling all floor panels between station 140 and station 640. Figure 18 should specify excluding those floor panels installed as shown in figure 17.

• Figure 8, Detail G, and figure 14, Detail K, should show the doubler and the support, not just the doubler.

We acknowledge and agree that there are certain technical errors identified in the figures of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3586, dated November 12, 2010. We have contacted Boeing and it has acknowledged the list of technical issues identified. We consider Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3586, dated November 12, 2010, adequate to address the identified unsafe condition; and this service information was validated by Boeing on an airplane. Different operators may see different numbers of necessary fasteners and will have to submit an AMOC if their configuration deviates from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3586, dated November 12, 2010, instructions. Boeing stated it will address the issues in a Boeing service bulletin revision or other service document to provide clarity in the work steps. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35890). 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 35890, June 15, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 35890, June 15, 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 35890, June 15, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 172 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 on U.S. operators to be $29,240, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 10 work-hours, for a cost of $850 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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 May 21, 2012 (77 FR 29914). 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 29914, May 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 29914, May 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 29914, May 21, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $170 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,400, or 850 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 29914, May 21, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, anycomments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

On July 10, 2012, the FAA published a final rule, in theFederal Registerchanging the name of the airport associated with the Class D and E airspace at Lakehurst, NJ, to Lakehurst Naval Support Activity/Maxfield Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst) (77 FR 40488). After publication, the FAA found that the geographic coordinates of the airport and Lakehurst (Navy) NDB navigation aid need to be adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. This action makes the administrative adjustment that does not affect the altitude, boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 6004 respectively of FAA order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the geographic coordinates listed in the airspace designation of the Class D and Class E airspace areas for Lakehurst Naval Support Activity/Maxfield Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), and the Lakehurst (Navy) NDB, Lakehurst, NJ, as published in theFederal Registerof July 10, 2012, (77 FR 40488), FR Doc. 2012-16674, are corrected as follows:

Jet Route J-528 is currently depicted on United States High Altitude En Route Navigation charts as a three-mile long segment that extends between the Whatcom, WA, VORTAC and the United States/Canadian border. J-528 is described in FAA Order 7400.9V as extending from Whatcom, WA, to Williams Lake, BC, Canada, excluding the airspace within Canada. The current FAA air traffic control automation system does not recognize J-528 beyond the Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center and Vancouver Area Control Center boundary. This results in numerous rejected international flight plans and additional air traffic controller workload. Since J-528 parallels another existing Jet Route, J-534 that originates in U.S. airspace and proceeds to Williams Lake, BC, Canada, removing J-528 will not adversely affect NAS operations. In addition, NavCanada has advised that the designator J-528 is used for a route that exists entirely within Canadian airspace.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Jet Route J-528 in Washington state. Due to its short length, the route serves no useful navigation or air traffic control purpose and causes flight plan error problems for the air traffic control automation system. Another Jet Route, J-534, that already exists through the same area, provides routing into Canada; therefore, removing J-528 will not result in any adverse impact to the NAS.

Because this action removes a redundant route segment that does not serve a useful navigation purpose, but causes problems for the air traffic control automation system, I find that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impractical and contrary to the public interest.

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

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority asit removes a Jet Route that no longer serves a purpose in the NAS.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9V, signed August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet route listed in this document will be removed subsequently from the Order.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink Online and the Online Forms/XML Web site. We also are making conforming changes to Rules 102 and 1013 of Regulation S-T4 relating to the Form ID authentication process.

The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 13 (July 2012) and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 20 (July 2012). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.5 Filers may consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission.6

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 12.1 on July 2, 2012 and will introduce the following changes: EDGAR will be updated to support submission of confidential draft registration statements for companies that qualify either under the JOBS Act or the Division of Corporate Finance's foreign private issuer policy. Draft registration statements and amendments must be submitted using submission form types DRS and DRS/A. These confidential submission types can be accessed from the EDGAR Filing Web site, by selecting the “Draft Reg. Statement” link. New filers may select the “Access Codes will be used to submit draft registration” option on the Form ID application to indicate that they are submitting an application for EDGAR access to file Draft Registration Statements. If the filers already have an assigned EDGAR Central Index Key (CIK), then they must use the existing CIK.

EDGAR and Regulation S-T will require the authenticating document for Form ID submissions to be submitted inelectronic format as a Portable Document Format (PDF) attachment. Filers would no longer be permitted to fax the Form ID authentication documents for new requests to apply for EDGAR access, update passphrase, convert paper only filer to electronic filer, and access for new serial companies.7

EDGAR will assign a unique Large Trader identification (“LTID”) number to any person or entity that files a new Form 13H initial filing. The acceptance email notification that EDGAR sends to the filer will include the assigned LTID number. On future 13H-A and 13H-Q filings, the system will pre-populate the previously assigned LTID number which will be unalterable by the registrant.

In addition, Form 13H's Taxpayer Identification Number field will accept a nine-digit Social Security Number if a filer does not have a ten-digit Taxpayer Identification Number without requiring the filer to use a placeholder digit. For Item 1(a), if filers indicate Investment Adviser as their business, they can further indicate their type of advisory business to involve “Registered Investment Companies” and/or “Hedge Funds or other Funds not registered under the Investment Company Act.” This field, which currently allows only one of these two options to be selected, will now allow both options to be selected. Finally, the OMB Number and the Paperwork Reduction Act Disclosures on the Instructions page of Form 13H will be updated.

EDGAR will no longer support US GAAP Taxonomy 1.0, US Financial Reporting Taxonomy Framework (USFRTF) 2005, US GAAP Taxonomy 2009, US Schedule of Investments (SOI) Taxonomy 2008, Risk Return Taxonomy 2008, and Risk Return Taxonomy 2006.

Form D screens and instructions will be updated for Item 6 to replace the reference to “Securities Act Section 4(6)” with “Securities Act Section 4(5)” as per Release No. 33-9287.

The OMB expiration date will no longer be displayed on the Forms TA-1, TA-2, TA-W, and 25-NSE. These forms will continue to display other OMB Approval information. In addition, Forms 3, 4, and 5 will no longer refer to Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA).

Filers will be able to view their account balance along with the date and amount of their most recent deposit. Filers will also able to view their account activity statement for the previous twelve months. Additionally, filers will be able to request the return of unused funds. These options will be available on the `Retrieve/Edit Company and Submission Data' functionality of the EDGAR Filing Web site.

The deployment of EDGAR Release 12.0.1, originally planned for July 9, 2012 to implement an online version of Form N-SAR, is being delayed until the fourth quarter of this calendar year. The specific deployment date will be announced on the Commission's public Web site's “Information for EDGAR Filers” page (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml). Filers should continue to use the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: N-SAR Supplement to file their N-SAR submissions. When the online version of Form N-SAR is deployed, EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: N-SAR Supplement will be retired. Instructions to file the online version of Form N-SAR addressed in Chapter 9 of EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing should then be followed.

Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.

You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Room 1543, Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual ishttp://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.

Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).8 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act9 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is September 6, 2012. In accordance with the APA,10 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 12.1 is scheduled to become available on July 2, 2012. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,11 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,12 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,13 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.14

In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Section 1.988-5 provides detailed rules that permit the integration of a qualifying debt instrument with a § 1.988-5(a) hedge. The effect of integration under the regulations is to create a synthetic debt instrument. Generally, if a taxpayer enters into a qualified hedging transaction and meets the requirements of the regulations, no exchange gain or loss is recognized on the debt instrument or the hedge for the period that it is part of a qualified hedging transaction (provided that the synthetic debt instrument is not denominated in a nonfunctional currency). See § 1.988-5(a)(9). A qualified hedging transaction is an integrated economic transactionconsisting of a qualifying debt instrument and a § 1.988-5(a) hedge. See § 1.988-5(a)(1). A qualifying debt instrument is any debt instrument described in § 1.988-1(a)(2)(i) regardless of its denominated currency. See § 1.988-5(a)(3). A § 1.988-5(a) hedge is a spot contract, futures contract, forward contract, option contract, notional principal contract, currency swap contract, or similar financial instrument, or series or combinations of such instruments, that when integrated with a qualifying debt instrument permits the calculation of a yield to maturity in the currency in which the synthetic debt instrument is denominated. See § 1.988-5(a)(4).

Under § 1.988-5(a)(6)(ii), a taxpayer that disposes of all or a part of the qualifying debt instrument or hedge prior to the maturity of the qualified hedging transaction, or that changes a material term of the qualifying debt instrument or hedge, is viewed as “legging out” of integrated treatment. One of the consequences of legging out is that if the hedge is disposed of, the qualifying debt instrument is treated as sold for its fair market value on the date of disposition of the hedge (leg-out date). See § 1.988-5(a)(6)(ii)(B). Any gain or loss on the qualifying debt instrument from the date of identification to the leg-out date is recognized on the leg-out date. The intended result of this deemed disposition rule is that the gain or loss on the qualifying debt instrument will generally be offset by the gain or loss on the hedge.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) have become aware that some taxpayers who are in a loss position with respect to a qualifying debt instrument that is part of a qualified hedging transaction are interpreting the legging-out rules of § 1.988-5(a)(6)(ii)(B) to permit the recognition of the loss on the debt instrument without recognition of all of the corresponding gain on the hedging component of the transaction. Taxpayers claim to achieve this result by hedging nonfunctional currency debt instruments with multiple financial instruments and selectively disposing of less than all of these positions. Taxpayers take the position that § 1.988-5(a)(6)(ii)(B) triggers the entire loss in the qualifying debt instrument but not the gain in the remaining components of the hedging side of the integrated transaction.

For example, a taxpayer may fully hedge a fixed rate nonfunctional currency denominated debt instrument that it has issued with two swaps—a nonfunctional currency/dollar currency swap and a fixed for floating dollar interest rate swap. The effect of matching the currency swap with the foreign currency denominated debt is to create synthetic fixed rate U.S. dollar debt while the effect of the interest rate swap is to simultaneously transform the synthetic fixed rate U.S. dollar debt into synthetic floating rate U.S. dollar debt. Thus, assuming that the rules of § 1.988-5(a) are otherwise satisfied, the taxpayer will have effectively converted the fixed rate foreign currency denominated debt instrument into a synthetic floating rate U.S. dollar denominated debt instrument.

As the U.S. dollar declines in value relative to the foreign currency in which the debt instrument is denominated, the taxpayer disposes of the interest rate swap while keeping the currency swap in existence. The taxpayer takes the position that the disposition of the interest rate swap allows it to treat the debt instrument as having been terminated on the date of disposition and claims a loss on the debt instrument without taking into account the offsetting gain on the remaining component of the hedge. Thus, the taxpayer claims the transaction generates a net loss. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that these results are inappropriate under the legging-out rules since the claimed loss is largely offset by unrealized gain on the remaining component of the hedging transaction. Therefore, the IRS and the Treasury Department are issuing these regulations to clarify the rules regarding the consequences of legging-out of qualified hedging transactions that consist of multiple components. No inference is intended regarding the merits of the position taken by the taxpayer with respect to the transaction described above (or comparable positions taken by taxpayers with respect to similar transactions) in the case of transactions occurring prior to the applicability date of these regulations, and in appropriate cases the IRS may challenge the claimed results.

Section 1.988-5(a) is amended to provide that if a hedge with more than one component has been properly identified as being part of a qualified hedging transaction, and at least one but not all of the components of the hedge that is a part of the qualified hedging transaction has been terminated or disposed of, all of the remaining components of the hedge (as well as the qualifying debt) shall be treated as sold for their fair market value on the leg-out date of the terminated hedge. Similarly, if a part of any component of a hedge (whether a hedge consists of a single or multiple components) has been disposed of, the remaining part of that component (as well as other components in the case of a hedge with multiple components) that is still in existence (as well as the qualifying debt instrument) shall be treated as sold for its fair market value on the leg-out date of the terminated hedge.

The regulation applies to leg-outs within the meaning of § 1.988-5(a)(6)(ii) which occur on or after September 6, 2012.

It has been determined that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Sheila Ramaswamy, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because it would be impracticable to do so with respect to this rule, as the logistical details of the San Diego Bay swim were not finalized nor presented to the Coast Guard in enough time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Delaying the effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure public safety.

Competitor Group is sponsoring the TriRock Triathlon, consisting of 2000 swimmers swimming a predetermined course. The sponsor will provide 18 safety vessels including boats, paddle boards, and PWCs for this event. A safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced on September 9, 2012, from 6:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. The limits of the safety zone will be navigable waters of the San Diego Bay behind the San Diego Convention Center bound by the following coordinates including the marina; 32°42′16″ N, 117°09′58″ W to 32°42′15″ N, 117°10′02″ W then south to 32°42′00″ N, 117°09′45″ W to 32°42′03″ N, 117°09′40″ W.

This safety zone is necessary to ensure unauthorized personnel and vessels remain safe by keeping clear during the bay swim. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels may be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times if they request and obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the aforementioned portion of the San Diego Bay from September 9, 2012, from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule impacts only a small area of San Diego Harbor, and will be enforced for only three hours. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is oneof a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

On July 3, 2012, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Head of the Cuyahoga and U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH in theFederal Register(77 FR 39453). We received 2 comments on the proposed rule, although both were made by a single organization—the Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). The LCA's comments are addressed below. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on September 15, 2012, the annual Head of the Cuyahoga rowing regatta will take place on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH. In conjunction with the HOTC, the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival will take place just north of the Detroit Superior Viaduct Bridge on the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

Following the HOTC and the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival on the 15th of September, the U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship will take place on September 16th along the same portion of the Cuyahoga River.

The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the HOTC, the U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship, and the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival rowing eventspresent significant hazards to public spectators and participants.

As mentioned above, the Coast Guard received two comments from the LCA in response to the NPRM published on July 3, 2012. One comment was presented directly to the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Unit (MSU) in Cleveland, OH on or about July 6, 2012. The other comment was submitted online on July 24, 2012. The comment submitted online is available in the docket. In sum, both LCA comments convey a concern about the effects that this safety zone will have on its members ability to enter the port and transit the Cuyahoga river. The LCA's online comment expresses a general dissatisfaction with “lengthy closures of commercial waterways” and a specific disagreement with this safety zone's proposed ten (10) hour closure of the river. Particularly, the LCA claims that the proposed ten (10) hour closure is one (1) hour longer than required by the race sponsors.

In response to the above comments, the Captain of the Port Buffalo consulted with the event sponsor to reassess the necessary enforcement times of this safety zone. Consequently, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has decided to shorten the length of the enforcement period. Previously, the NPRM proposed that the safety zone would be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 15 and 16, 2012. Now, in light of the LCA's concerns, this temporary final rule establishes an enforcement period from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. on those same dates.

As discussed in the NPRM, this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Head of the Cuyahoga, U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship, and the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival. As mentioned above, the safety zone will be effective and enforced from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. on September 15 and 16, 2012.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH from a line drawn perpendicular from position 41°28′32″ N, 081°40′16″ W (NAD 83) just south of the Interstate 490 bridge, north to the Detroit-Superior Viaduct bridge.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners of operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 15 and 16, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone will be enforce for only 9 hours each day for two days. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before the enforcement of the zone, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online athttp://www.regulations.gov,or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number (USCG-2012-0736) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number (USCG-2012-0736) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard received notification of the sailing events on July 19, 2012 and the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the high speeds of the sailing vessels used during the America's Cup event, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners transiting the area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. For the reasons stated above, delaying the effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the proposed temporary rule is the Ports and Waterways Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones (33 U.S.C sections 1221et seq.).

In 2012, the City of San Francisco plans to host two America's Cup World Series regattas as part of a circuit of sailing events being conducted at other U.S. and international venues. The first San Francisco World Series regattas are scheduled to occur August 21-26, 2012. The second World Series regattas are scheduled to occur October 2-7, 2012 and will be held in conjunction with the San Francisco Bay Fleetweek events as per an official agreement made between the America's Cup Race Management (ACRM) and the Fleetweek program coordinators. This rule will regulate the on-water activities for the America's Cup World Series regattas taking place in October immediately prior to Fleetweek.

From October 2-3, 2012, this rule establishes a temporary safety zone for the sailing events on the waters of San Francisco Bay adjacent to the City of San Francisco waterfront. From October 4-7, 2012, America's Cup sailing events will occur inside of the regulated area established in the existing Fleetweek special local regulation, which is described in 33 CFR 100.1105(b)(2). This rule does not apply to the America's Cup sailing that will occur during Fleetweek. This temporary safety zone is established to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area from the dangers associated with the sailing events.

During the first two days of the America's Cup World Series regattas taking place in October, the Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay bounded by a line beginning at position 37°48′43″ N, 122°25′11″ W at the eastern end of Fisherman's Wharf Breakwater, running east to position 37°48′43″ N, 122°25′01″ W, running north to position 37°49′07″ N, 122°25′01″ W, running northwest to position 37°49′14″ N, 122°25′12″ W located south of Alcatraz Island, running west to position 37°49′14″ N, 122°27′13″ W, running south to position 37°48′23″ N, 122°27′13″ W, running eastward along the City of San Francisco shoreline, along the Municipal Pier, east across the mouth of Aquatic Park cove to the Fisherman's Wharf breakwater then east along the breakwater (NAD 83). The World Series regattas regulated by this temporary safety zone are scheduled to take place from 12:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. on October 2, 2012 and October 3, 2012. Movement within marinas, pier spaces, and facilities along the City of San Francisco waterfront is not regulated by this rule. At the conclusion of the World Series regattas the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the America's Cup sailing events. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep mariners and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the high-speed sailing vessels participating in America's Cup.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We do not expect the rule to be significant because the safety zone is limited in duration and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). Specifically, this event was analyzed as part of the environmental assessment for the 34th America's Cup (available athttp://www.americascupnepa.org/documents.html,see p. 2-101, covering the exhibition from September 30 to October 3). Based on our analysis, the Coast Guard has concluded this action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact for this event is available in the docket.

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

Table of Contents I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? II. Does this action apply to me? III. Description of Amendments to Part 761 A.Overview of Changes to 40 CFR Part 761 B.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.207 (The Manifest—General Requirements) C.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.208 (Use of the Manifest) D.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.209 (Retention of Manifest Records) E.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.210 (Manifest Discrepancies) F.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.211 (Unmanifested Waste Report) G.Revisions to the PCB Regulations under 40 CFR 761.215 (Exception Reporting) H.Revisions to other Sections in 40 CFR 761 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Congressional Review Act I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

EPA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because the Agency views this action as noncontroversial and EPA anticipates no adverse comments since these changes are only meant to update the PCB manifest regulations for the sake of consistency between the PCB manifest and the RCRA manifest. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today'sFederal Register, EPA is also publishing a separate document that will serve as a proposed rule should the Agency receive adverse comments on this action. EPA will not institute a second proposal or allow for another comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time using the Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0524, which is common to both this direct final rule and the proposed rule. For further information about commenting on this rule, see theADDRESSESsection of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comments, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerinforming the public that these amendments will not take effect, and the reason for such withdrawal. EPA will address public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule being concurrently published today.

If we do not receive adverse comments, this direct final rule will take effect on December 5, 2012.

This action applies to generators, transporters, and designated facilities (off-site disposal and commercial storage facilities) managing PCB wastes. Potentially affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to:

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 section 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 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection of this document.

The existing PCB manifest regulations are in 40 CFR part 761. The RCRA manifest regulations are in 40 CFR parts 262, 263, and 264. Since the promulgation of the PCB manifest regulations, several updates have been made to the RCRA manifest regulations, where the corresponding changes have not been made to the PCB manifest regulations. The intent of today's changes is to bring into alignment, as much as possible, the manifesting requirements for PCBs to those of RCRA hazardous waste. These changes are needed because PCB wastes are manifested using the RCRA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and PCB waste handlers and generators need to adhere to the more recent RCRA hazardous waste manifest regulations, while still accounting for certain unique PCB manifest regulations. Since PCBs are manifested using the same manifest as RCRA hazardous waste, all of the changes described today to part 761 are already being implemented by PCB waste handlers and generators except for the exemption to manifest waste transported on a right-of-way (40 CFR 262.20(f)), and as a result, this rulemaking should have no economic impact since PCB waste handlers and generators will not have to modify their current practices on manifesting PCB waste. No additional burden is created. Furthermore, to simplify the use of both the RCRA and PCB manifest regulations, sections under part 761 are being reorganized and renumbered to parallel the similar sections under parts 262 through 264.

EPA compared the PCB manifest regulations (40 CFR part 761) to the RCRA manifest regulations (40 CFR parts 262, 263, and 264) to determine which sections from the RCRA manifest regulations do not exist in the PCB manifest regulations. Below is a table (Table 1) of the regulations from 40 CFR parts 262-264 that EPA is adding to 40 CFR part 761, where the content of the section will be new to 40 CFR part 761. Explanations for the changes below, as with the other changes in this rule, are included in the subsequent sections in this direct final rule. In addition to today's direct final rule, EPA is including, in the docket, a crosswalk between the RCRA manifest regulations and the PCB manifest regulations.

As published, the final rule incorrectly uses the word (DATE) in several places in part 3052 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We are correcting each instance of (DATE) to correctly state the appropriate date of “(SEP 2012)”. In FR Doc. 2012-20440 appearing on page 50631 in theFederal Registerof Wednesday, August 22, 2012, the following corrections are made:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The fourth seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the shallow-water species fishery in the GOA is 150 metric tons as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2012, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2012.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the fourth seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl shallow-water species fishery in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the shallow-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the shallow-water species fishery are pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, skates, squids, sharks, octopuses, and sculpins. This prohibition does not apply to fishing for pollock by vessels using pelagic trawl gear in those portions of the GOA open to directed fishing for pollock and vessels fishing under a cooperative quota permit in the cooperative fishery in the Rockfish Program for the Central GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the shallow-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 30, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The 2012 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to C/Ps using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 497 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2012 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to C/Ps using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator isestablishing a directed fishing allowance of 497 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 0 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by C/Ps using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for C/Ps using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 30, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The 2012 Pacific cod total allowable catch specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 7,952 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 150 mt of the 2012 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A)(3). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional Administrator has also determined that the jig sector currently has the capacity to harvest this excess allocation and reallocates 150 mt of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to vessels using jig gear.

The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012) are revised as follows: 7,802 mt for catcher vessels using trawl gear and 465 mt to vessels using jig gear.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from catcher vessels using trawl gear to vessels using jig gear. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 30, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.