We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On February 15, 2011, Tamarack Aerospace Group applied for a supplemental type certificate for installation of winglets and an Active Technology Load Alleviation System (ATLAS) on the Cirrus Model SR 22 (serial numbers 0002—2333, 2335—2419, and 2421—2437). The Cirrus model SR22 is a certified, single reciprocating engine, four-passenger, composite airplane.

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

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

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

14 CFR part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-53, except as follows:

Except for:

Addition of regulation 14 CFR 23.1306 through Amendment 23-61.

Addition of regulation 14 CFR 23.1308 through Amendment 23-57.

Change in Cirrus model SR22 certification basis for regulation 14 CFR 23.1359 through Amendment 23-49 from: Not Applicable to: Applicable

ACE-96-5 for 14 CFR Section 23.221 (Spinning); Refer to FAA Memorandum, dated June 10, 1998, for models SR20, SR22.

ACE-00-09 for 14 CFR 23.1143(g) (Engine Controls) and 23.1147(b) (Mixture Controls); Refer to FAA Memorandum, dated September 11, 2000, for model SR22.

ACE-01-01 for 14 CFR 23.1143(g) (Engine Controls) and 23.1147(b) (Mixture Controls); Refer to FAA Memorandum, dated February 14, 2001, for model SR20.

23-ACE-88 for ballistic parachute, for models SR20, SR22.

23-134-SC for protection of systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields continued: (HIRF), for models SR20, SR22.

23-163-SC for inflatable restraint system. Addition to the certification basis model SR20 effective S/N 1541 and subsequent; model SR22 S/N 1500, 1520 and subsequent.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the SR22 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are issued the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus Model SR22 airplanes (S/Ns 0002 through 2333, 2335 through 2419, and 2421 through 2437) modified by Tamarack Aerospace Group.

(A) The following special conditions apply to airplanes equipped with load alleviation systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. Thesespecial conditions address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. Any statistical or probability terms used in the following special conditions apply to the structural requirements only and do not replace, remove, or supersede other requirements, including those in part 23, subpart E. These criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

(B) In addition to the requirements in 14 CFR 23.301 Loads, comply with the following:

(a) Failures of the load alleviation system, including the annunciation system, must be immediately annunciated to the pilot or annunciated prior to the next flight. Failure of the load alleviation system, including the annunciation system, must be no greater than 1 x 10−5per flight hour.

(b) If failure of the load alleviation system, including the annunciation system, is greater than 1 x 10−8per flight hour, an independent system functional test must be accomplished at a periodic interval to limit time exposure to an undetected failed system. The time interval for the system functional test must be selected so that the product of the time interval in hours and the failure of the load alleviation system, including the annunciation system, is no greater than 1 x 10−5per hour.

(c) Tamarack must report failed annunciation systems to the FAA in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.

(C) In place of the requirements in 14 CFR 23.303 Factor of Safety, comply with the following:

The airplane must be able to withstand the limit and ultimate loads resulting from the following scenarios:

(a) The loads resulting from 14 CFR 23.321 through 23.537, as applicable, corresponding to a fully operative load alleviation system. A factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to determine ultimate loads.

(b) If an independent system functional test is required by SC 23.301(b), the loads resulting from 14 CFR 23.321 through 23.537, as applicable, corresponding to the system in the inoperative state without additional flight limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane. A factor of safety of 1.0 must be applied to determine ultimate loads.

(c) The loads corresponding to the time of occurrence of load alleviation system failure and immediately after the failure. These loads must be determined at any speed up to VNE, starting from 1g level flight conditions, and considering realistic scenarios, including pilot corrective actions. A factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to determine ultimate loads.

(d) For airplanes equipped with “before the next flight” failure annunciation systems, the loads resulting from 14 CFR 23.321 through 23.537, as applicable, corresponding to the system in the failed state without additional flight limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane. A factor of safety of 1.25 must be applied to determine ultimate loads.

(e) For airplanes equipped with “immediate” failure annunciation systems, the loads resulting from 14 CFR 23.321 through 23.537, as applicable, corresponding to the system in the failed state with additional flight limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane. A factor of safety of 1.0 must be applied to determine ultimate loads.

(D) In addition to the requirements in 14 CFR 23.571 through 23.574, comply with the following:

If any system failure would have a significant effect on the fatigue or damage evaluations required in §§ 23.571 through 23.574, then these effects must be taken into account. If an independent system functional test is required by SC 23.301(b), the effect on fatigue and damage evaluations resulting from the selected inspection interval must be taken into account.

(E) In addition to the requirements in 14 CFR 23.629 Flutter, comply with the following:

(a) With the load alleviation system fully operative, compliance to 14 CFR 23.629 must be shown. Compliance with § 23.629(f) must include the ATLAS control system and control surface.

(b) At the time of occurrence of load alleviation system failure and immediately after the failure, compliance with 14 CFR 23.629(a) and (e) must be shown up to VD/MDwithout consideration of additional operating limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane.

(c) For airplanes equipped with “before the next flight” failure annunciation systems and the load alleviation system in the failed state, compliance to 14 CFR 23.629 Flutter, paragraphs (a) and (e), must be shown up to VD/MDwithout consideration of additional operating limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane.

(d) For airplanes equipped with “immediate” failure annunciation systems and the load alleviation system in the failed state, compliance to 14 CFR 23.629 Flutter, paragraphs (a) and (e), must be shown with consideration of additional operating limitations or reconfiguration of the airplane at speeds up to VD= 1.4 x maximum speed limitation selected by the applicant.

(A) In place of 14 CFR 23.672 Stability augmentation and automatic and power-operated systems requirement, comply with the following:

The load alleviation system must comply with the following:

(a) A warning, which is clearly distinguishable to the pilot under expected flight conditions without requiring the pilot's attention, must be provided for any failure in the load alleviation system or in any other automatic system that could result in an unsafe condition if the pilot was not aware of the failure. Warning systems must not activate the control system.

(b) The design of the load alleviation system or of any other automatic system must permit initial counteraction of failures without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, by either the deactivation of the system or a failed portion thereof, or by overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls in the normal sense.

(c) It must be shown that, while the system is active or after any single failure of the load alleviation system—

(1) The airplane is safely controllable when the failure or malfunction occurs at any speed or altitude within the approved operating limitations that is critical for the type of failure being considered;

(2) The controllability and maneuverability requirements of this part are met within a practical operational flight envelope (for example, speed, altitude, normal acceleration, and airplane configuration) that is described in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM); and

(3) The trim, stability, and stall characteristics are not impaired below a level needed to permit continued safe flight and landing.

(B) In place of 14 CFR 23.677 Trim systems requirement, comply with the following:

(a) Proper precautions must be taken to prevent inadvertent, improper, or abrupt Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS) operation.

(b) The load alleviation system must be designed so that, when any one connecting or transmitting element in the primary flight control system fails, adequate longitudinal control for safe flight and landing is available.

(c) The load alleviation system must be irreversible unless the TACS is properly balanced and has no unsafe flutter characteristics. The system must have adequate rigidity and reliability in the portion of the system from the tab to the attachment of the irreversible unit to the airplane structure.

(d) It must be demonstrated that the airplane is safely controllable and that the pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to effect a safe landing following any probable powered system runaway that reasonably might be expected in service, allowing for appropriate time delay after pilot recognition of the system runaway. The demonstration must be conducted at critical airplane weights and center of gravity positions.

(C) In place of 14 CFR 23.683 Operation tests requirement, comply with the following:

(a) It must be shown by operation tests that, when the load alleviation system is active and operational and loaded as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, the system is free from—

(1) Jamming;

(2) Excessive friction; and

(3) Excessive deflection.

(b) The prescribed test loads are, for the entire system, loads corresponding to the limit airloads on the appropriate surface.

(D) In place of 14 CFR 23.685 Control system details requirement, comply with the following:

(a) Each detail of the Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS) must be designed and installed to prevent jamming, chafing, and interference from cargo, passengers, loose objects, or the freezing of moisture.

(b) There must be means in the cockpit to prevent the entry of foreign objects into places where they would jam any one connecting or transmitting element of the system.

(c) Each element of the load alleviation system must have design features, or must be distinctively and permanently marked, to minimize the possibility of incorrect assembly that could result in malfunctioning of the control system.

(E) In place of 14 CFR 23.697 Wing flap controls requirement, comply with the following:

(a) The Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS) must be designed so that, when the surface has been placed in any position, it will not move from that position unless the control is adjusted or is moved by the automatic operation of a load alleviation system.

(b) The rate of movement of the TACS in response to the automatic device must give satisfactory flight and performance characteristics under steady or changing conditions of airspeed, engine power, and attitude.

(F) In place of 14 CFR 23.701 Flap interconnection requirement, comply with the following:

(a) The load alleviation system and related movable surfaces as a system must—

(1) Be synchronized by a mechanical interconnection between the movable surfaces; or by an approved equivalent means; or

(2) Be designed so that the occurrence of any failure of the system that would result in an unsafe flight characteristic of the airplane is extremely improbable; or

(b) The airplane must be shown to have safe flight characteristics with any combination of extreme positions of individual movable surfaces.

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in theFederal Registerexpensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in theFederal Registerexpensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

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) with respect to this rule because delay would be impracticable. Immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, participants, and others in the vicinity of the marine event on the dates and times this rule will be in effect.

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, since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety.

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

Sea World is sponsoring the Sea World Fireworks, which will include a fireworks presentation from a barge in Mission Bay. The fireworks display is scheduled to occur between 8:50 p.m. and 10 p.m. on February 16, 2013. This fireworks display could cause a hazard for crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on February 16, 2013. The safety zone will cover a 600 foot radius surrounding the fireworks barge in approximate position 32°46′03″ N, 117°13′11″ W. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. When this safety zone is being enforced, 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 will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times.

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.

(1) 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 a portion of Mission Bay from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on February 16, 2013.

(2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone will only be in effect for one hour and 10 minutes late in the evening when vessel traffic is low.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to do so. Delaying promulgation may result in injury or damage to persons and vessels since the roll-out event is scheduled to occur before a comment period would end and a Final Rule could be published.

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 until 30 days after publication would be impracticable, as this delay would eliminate the safety zones' effectiveness and usefulness in protecting persons, property, and the safe navigation of maritime traffic during the 30-day period.

Vigor Industrial is conducting a vessel roll-out in the West Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, Washington on February 28, 2013. Due to the dangers involved with a large slow moving dry dock that will be maneuvering close to the shore, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone to ensure the safety of the workers involved as well as the maritime public.

The safety zone helps ensure the public's safety during a vessel roll-out that will take place on February 28, 2013 in the waters of the West Duwamish Waterway. The safety zone created by this rule encompasses all waters of the West Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, Washington within the area created by connecting the following points: 47°35′04″ N, 122°21′30″ W thence westerly to 47°35′04″ N, 122°21′50″ W thence northerly to 47°35′19″ N, 122°21′50″ W thence easterly to 47°35′19″ N, 122°21′30″ Wthence southerly to 47°35′04″ N, 122°21′30″ W. Geographically, the safety zone is adjacent to the northern tip of Harbor Island in Seattle, WA.

All persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering or remaining in the safety zone. The safety zone will be effective on February 28, 2013 from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative. The safety zone will be enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Captain of the Port may also be assisted in the enforcement of this safety zone by other federal, state, or local agencies.

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. The Coast Guard has made this finding based on the fact that the safety zone is limited in duration, and maritime traffic may be able to transit through the safety zone with permission of the Captain of the Port or a 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 through the safety zone created by this rule. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the waterway, the zone will be enforced for a limited period of time, and vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.

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 one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

I. Procedural Background

On January 31, 2012, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published in theFederal Registerat 77 FR 4749 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing changes to LSC's enforcement mechanisms. On August 7, 2012, LSC published in theFederal Registerat 77 FR 46995 a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) expanding on the NPRM. LSC is now publishing final rules to conclude this rulemaking.

LSC undertook this rulemaking to add three new enforcement options to the LSC regulations regarding grants for the provision of legal assistance:

(1) A new “limited reduction of funding” that enables LSC to respond quickly to instances of substantial violation of LSC requirements through funding reductions of less than five percent using more simple procedures than for terminations of five percent or greater;

(2) suspensions for non-audit based compliance issues that could last for up to ninety days, an increase from thirty days in the previous rule; and

(3) special grant conditions regarding compliance issues that LSC could add immediately to a current grant.

In the course of the rulemaking, LSC developed new administrative procedures to enhance the opportunities for informal resolution when LSC proposes to undertake a limited reduction of funding, a termination in whole or in part, or a debarment. The rule already provided for informal resolution through an informal conference with opportunities for settlement or compromise. The rule has enhanced the informal conference and added procedures to provide for resolution of the matter through prompt corrective action agreements, when appropriate.

This rulemaking also clarifies existing regulations and makes conforming changes to the rules in order to accommodate the new process and procedures indicated. All of the comments and related memos submitted to the LSC Board regarding thisrulemaking are available in the open rulemaking section of LSC's Web site atwww.lsc.gov.

After the effective date of the rule, those materials will appear in the closed rulemaking section.

The LSC Act provides general authority to the Corporation “to insure the compliance of recipients and their employees with the provisions of [the Act] and the rules, regulations, and guidelines promulgated pursuant to [the Act].” 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1)(A). LSC's principal regulation discussing general enforcement authority and procedures is the Enforcement Procedures regulation at 45 CFR part 1618. LSC uses a variety of enforcement tools, formal and informal, to ensure compliance. Among these are informal consultations and compliance training, on-site Case Service Report/Case Management System reviews, the imposition of Required Corrective Actions (RCAs), and the imposition of Special Grant Conditions (SGCs) at the beginning of a grant award period or at grant renewal. Several enforcement tools involving suspending or reducing funding to a recipient to address significant non-compliance are provided in LSC-adopted regulations. LSC has adopted grant termination procedures (45 CFR part 1606) that provide for the termination of funding in whole or part in cases of a recipient's substantial noncompliance with LSC statutory or regulatory requirements and other policies, instructions, or grant terms and conditions. LSC has also adopted suspension procedures (45 CFR part 1623) and disallowed-cost procedures (45 CFR part 1630). Lastly, part 1606 provides authority for LSC to debar recipients from eligibility to receive future grants.

LSC amended the part 1606 termination procedures in 1998 and created a separate provision for reductions of funding of less than five percent, which are not considered terminations and not subject to the full set of procedures that apply to terminations. The 1998 amendments to the rule required, however, that to reduce funding to a recipient by less than five percent, LSC would have to establish additional procedures by rulemaking. 45 CFR 1606.2(d)(2)(v). LSC commenced this rulemaking to establish those procedures.

The majority of LSC recipients are in substantial compliance with LSC requirements most of the time. When non-compliance occurs, recipients almost always work diligently and cooperatively with LSC staff to come promptly into compliance, but there have been exceptions and situations in which LSC has felt the need for the kind of enforcement tools covered by this rulemaking.

This rulemaking also addresses a problem in the previous rules regarding LSC's ability to take timely actions. LSC can impose suspensions after as little as eleven days of process, but the previous rule limited suspensions to thirty days (other than audit-based suspensions). The next enforcement option available to LSC was terminations, which require five months or more of procedures if the recipient uses all available levels of review. Similarly, disallowed costs may be available to recover improperly spent funds, although that process is designed for recovery rather than enforcement and sanction. Also, disallowed costs can take over five months to complete (except for disallowed costs of less than $2,500). This rulemaking provides for suspensions of funding for up to ninety days, for limited reductions of funding that can be implemented in approximately eighty days, and for special grant conditions that can be added immediately to an existing grant.

This rulemaking also addresses concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its report, Legal Services Corporation: Improved internal controls needed in grants management and oversight, GAO-08-37 (December 2007). In that report, the GAO opined that LSC has “limited options for sanctioning or replacing poor-performing recipients.” GAO-08-37 at 17. The existing enforcement mechanisms available to LSC are best suited to situations involving numerous and/or very significant violations that merit severe actions such as terminations, or to situations in which compliance issues are technical or minor and can be resolved through corrective actions, grant conditions, and similar actions. LSC has not had enforcement mechanisms well suited to violations or compliance issues in an intermediate range (e.g.,material but not extreme, or multiple but not profuse) in situations where a recipient does not voluntarily take corrective action in a timely manner. Furthermore, disallowed costs are not a good substitute for an intermediate range enforcement mechanism. The amount of funds in question is not necessarily proportional to the severity of the violation. Minor violations could have large associated costs while major violations could have relatively small associated costs.

LSC significantly revised LSC's enforcement rules in 1998 in response to Congressional changes to the governing law. Prior to 1996, section 1011 of the LSC Act provided minimum process requirements for suspensions over thirty days, terminations, and denials of refunding that included hearing rights and review by independent hearing examiners. 42 U.S.C. 2996j. LSC implemented these statutory requirements in 1976 and 1978 through the original enforcement regulations: part 1618 (General enforcement thresholds), part 1606 (Terminations and denials of refunding), and part 1623 (Suspensions). In 1996, Congress suspended section 1011 via riders to the annual LSC appropriation, which have been reincorporated every year thereafter, including some modifications in 1998.

For the purposes of the funding provided in this [FY 1996 Appropriations] Act, rights under sections 1007(a)(9) [interim funding for refunding applicants] and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j) shall not apply.

LSC implemented these statutory changes by revising 45 CFR parts 1606 and 1623. 63 FR 64636 (1998) (parts1606 and 1625), 63 FR 64646 (1998) (part 1623). LSC explained that:

The changes in this final rule reflect LSC's obligation to safeguard public funds appropriated by Congress for civil legal aid by ensuring compliance with LSC rules, restrictions, and requirements. These additions to the enforcement mechanisms are consistent with LSC's understanding of Congress's intent to strengthen LSC's enforcement mechanisms, while carefully accounting for the importance of continued delivery of legal services and the rights of LSC recipients.

LSC uses a variety of non-regulation based tools to track and ensure compliance. Among these are informal consultations and compliance training, on-site Case Service Report/Case Management System reviews, the imposition of Required Corrective Actions (RCAs), and the imposition of Special Grant Conditions (SGCs) at the beginning of a grant year.

LSC relies primarily on RCAs to remedy compliance problems. The LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE) estimates that in approximately 90 percent of cases in which RCAs are imposed, recipients implement the RCAs on a timely and satisfactory basis. In approximately ten percent of the cases, however, a recipient fails to implement the required corrective actions in a timely or satisfactory manner. In some instances in which recipients have failed to implement RCAs in a timely or satisfactory manner, LSC has imposed SGCs. Although SGCs may be substantively identical to the measures contained in RCAs, SGCs elevate the matter by formally incorporating the conditions into the recipient's grant documents and ensuring that the recipient's Board Chair, who has to sign the SGCs, is aware of an ongoing problem. In recent years, LSC has also used short-term funding to encourage compliance by providing a grant or successive grants for less than a year (e.g.,month-to-month).

Members of the LSC Board raised concerns that the parallel and interrelated procedures for different enforcement mechanisms could be confusing. For clarification, the table below summarizes the enforcement actions provided for in the rules and the respective procedures for each. This table uses the revised nomenclature provided in the final rule. The prior suspension and termination rules contained inconsistencies in the terms used for each stage of the process; those terms have been standardized in the final rule.

LSC received nineteen comments on the NPRM and eight comments on the FNPRM. All of the comments and LSC's analysis of them are posted on the rulemaking page ofwww.lsc.gov.http://www.lsc.gov/about/regulations-rules

The most extensive comments on both proposals were submitted by the LSC Office of Inspector General (OIG), the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (SCLAID), and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA). Colorado Legal Services and the Northwest Justice Project (NJP) also submitted detailed comments. The other comments generally endorsed the NLADA comments. Only the OIG fully supported the rulemaking, although the OIG recommended removing any time limit on suspensions and expressed concerns that the requirements for the new special grant conditions were too restrictive. SCLAID did not oppose the rulemaking, but it strongly recommended significant enhancements to standards and procedures similar to those recommended by NLADA. NLADA, and most of the other comments, opposed the rulemaking and recommended significant enhancements to standards and procedures if it proceeded.

The NPRM proposed a new set of procedures for limited reductions of funding based on the existing procedures for suspensions, which provide for one level of review through an informal meeting. In response to comments that this did not provide sufficient process, LSC revised the proposal in the FNPRM in two ways. First, the same process is used at the initial stage for terminations and for limited reductions. Thereafter, limited reductions may be appealed to the LSC President using procedures based on the disallowed cost appeal procedures in 45 CFR part 1630. Some comments also raised similar concerns for suspensions, especially if they could last for up to ninety days. In response, the final rule also adds the same appeal process for suspensions once they extend beyond thirty days (thirty-day suspensions have always been permitted without further appeal). The NPRM proposed allowing LSC to impose SGCs immediately during a grant term rather than waiting for a new grant award or renewal. The OIG's comment expressed concern that the SGC language might appear to constrain some of LSC's authority, and other comments indicated concerns that the SGC language was too vague. In the FNPRM, LSC revised the language to clarify that it applies to the kinds of situations in which LSC has investigated a matter and developed RCAs. LSC may immediately impose SGCs that incorporate those RCAs into the grant documents.

The comments that recommended enhancements in the standards and procedures were not limited to the enforcement actions in the proposed rulemaking. Rather, they recommended revisions that would significantly change the rules as they have existed since 1998. In many cases, they would return to the pre-1998 standards, such as requiring non-LSC, independent hearing examiners, or exceed those standards, such as an increased intent requirement and a safe harbor for reliance on reasonable alternate interpretations of the LSC rules. LSC commenced this rulemaking to enhance enforcement options within the standards and procedures adopted in the 1998 rulemaking to respond to Congress's changes in the enforcement requirements of the LSC Act. The final rule does not adopt the many suggestions in the comments to change that carefully constructed enforcement framework. The OIG also suggested adding a requirement for publication of all final decisions to address due process concerns in the comments through transparency for those final actions. Rather than incorporating that suggestion as a regulatory requirement, LSC will address it in the policies and procedures for enforcement actions.

The final rule makes a number of revisions to increase the focus on attempts to resolve the violation at or before the informal conference. The final rule adds to the notice of the preliminary determination a requirement for summarizing prior attempts at resolution. The previous rule required that the same LSC employee who issued the notice would hold the informal conference. The final rule permits LSC to designate any senior employee to hold the informal conference, which provides LSC with more flexibility to set a dispute resolution tone. The final rule also adds “implementation of corrective actions” as an example of the types of settlement or compromise envisioned for the informal conference.

The final rule includes a new alternative strategy for informal resolution prior to the implementation of an enforcement action. LSC has the option of notifying the recipient that it can avoid the enforcement action through corrective action, if appropriate. The recipient may elect to accept that corrective action through timelines and implementation plans acceptable to LSC and documented in a compliance agreement; LSC could hold the enforcement action in abeyance so long as the recipient honors the agreement. If the recipient completes the corrective actions to LSC's satisfaction (in both substance and timeliness), then LSC would withdraw the preliminary determination without implementing the enforcement action. If LSC at any time decides that the recipient has failed to adhere to the agreed-upon corrective action plan, including failing to act in accordance with the established timeline, then LSC could continue with the enforcement process.

In response to the comments received, LSC has included in the final rule an appeals process for suspensions that last over thirty days. The appeals process is based on the appeals process for limited reductions of funding. As with suspension decisions, the timeframe is short to enable LSC to resolve the appeal quickly. Unlike other enforcement actions, suspensions are enforced during the appeal period.

The final rule discusses the scope of partial terminations and limited reductions of funding by using the language of the previous rule regarding the level of financial assistance provided by the Corporation to a recipient pursuant to a grant or contract. 45 CFR 1600.1 defines “financial assistance” as the “annualized funding from the Corporation granted under section 1006(a)(1)(A) for the direct delivery of legal assistance to eligible clients.” These grants are for the provision of general-purpose legal assistance in a geographic area or to a specific population. Currently, LSC provides these grants for three types of service areas: basic field, Native American, and migrant. When LSC awards multiple service areas to a recipient (e.g.,both a basic field service area and migrant service area), it typically does so through a single grant or contract. Part 1606 enforcement actions affect the level of financial assistance, which will include all of the 1006(a)(1)(A) service areas.

Other LSC grants, under sections 1006(a)(1)(B) or (a)(3) of the LSC Act, are not subject to these procedures. Rather, LSC may provide for terminations or other enforcement actions for those grants pursuant to policies and procedures specific to those grant programs. For example, funding for Technology Initiative Grants is project-based and specifically tied to acquisitions, tasks, and timelines.

The final rule implements the NPRM provision that limited reductions apply only to one grant year. The final rule continues the provisions of the previous rule that a partial termination presumptively applies to only one grant year, but that LSC can specify a longer period up to the entire funding term.

Section 1601.1(b) contains two additions. First, the phrase “proportional to the proposed action” is added to modify “timely and fair due process procedures.” This addition corresponds to the addition of procedures for limited reductions of funding of less than five percent, which do not include a hearing before a hearing officer. The rule provides two sets of overlapping procedures, one for debarments and terminations of funding (five percent and greater) and the other for limited reductions of funding (less than five percent). Second, the phrase “or to impose a limited reduction of funding” is added to the list of remedies available under the rule.

A new § 1601.1(d) reflects a reorganization of the rule in the interest of clarity. It relocates the previous § 1606.2(c), without change, which described provisions of other LSC regulations that involve funding changes but are not subject to the termination procedures. This relocation emphasizes and clarifies that the indicated situations are not subject to the actions under part 1606. A corresponding change to matching language in 45 CFR part 1614 is included in this final rule.

This section has substantive and structural changes. All of the definitions now appear alphabetically.

The term “Corporation” is defined in 45 CFR 1600.1 to mean the Legal Services Corporation. The definition has been expanded here to provide that decisions of the Corporation, such as initiating a part 1606 proceeding, must be made by an individual acting at the level of, or senior to, an LSC office director. A deputy director could make these decisions if he or she is acting with the authority of the director, such as when the director's position is vacant, or the director is unavailable due to an illness and the deputy director has taken over the relevant responsibilities. The FNPRM had proposed that decisions could be made by deputy directors. The final rule narrows the circumstances in which deputy directors can act, in part responding to concerns raised by a commenter.

“Days” is added as a defined term to mean calendar days as computed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless business days are specified, in which case Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays recognized under those rules are excluded. The rule had not previously defined days, which could have caused confusion regarding deadlines. In particular, some deadlines were five days, which in some cases could be as little as two business days. All time periods below fifteen days are changed in the rule to business days.

“Funding term” is added as a defined term to mean the time period for an award of financial assistance for a service area as that term is used in grant-making. The funding term is the longest period between competitions for a service area. Under 45 CFR part 1634, LSC can award a section 1006(a)(1)(A) grant or contract for up to five years, which is the funding term. LSC provides section 1006(a)(1)(A) awards for a maximum funding term, which is normally no greater than three years. Within the funding term, LSC provides funding for grant award periods of no more than one year, which can be renewed for additional grant award periods.

“Limited reduction of funding” is added as a defined term for reductions of funding of less than five percent, which the previous rule excluded from the definition of terminations. Unlike partial terminations, limited reductions apply only to the current grant year.

“LSC requirements” is added as a defined term in 45 CFR part 1618 to capture the full list of statutory, regulatory, and other requirements that apply to LSC grants or contracts for financial assistance under the LSC Act. Parts 1606 and 1623 of the previous rules repeatedly referenced the list of sources specified in this definition. For both clarity and consistency, the term is now defined using the language appearing in the previous rules and is cross-referenced in both parts 1606 and 1623.

“Receipt” of materials is added as a defined term to provide clarity in calculating deadlines under the rule. Formal service of process is not required. Service must be sufficient to ensure that both LSC and the recipient are fully aware of the proceedings and the actions taken by both entities at each stage.

The definition of “recipient” is functionally unchanged from the previously published version of this rule, which reiterated the definition at 45 CFR 1600.1. The final rule replaces that reiteration with a simple cross-reference.

The term “substantial noncompliance” is clarified in this rule. The term is defined to mean either a substantial violation of the LSC requirements or a substantial failure to provide high quality, economical, and effective legal assistance.

A definition of “substantial violation” has been added using the functional definition from § 1606.3(a) without any material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule.

The definition of “termination” has been updated to reflect new definitions in the rule and relocation of the cross-references to other regulations; no material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule have been made.

A definition of “violation” has been added to make clear that the scope of violations at issue under this rule is limited to the LSC requirements.

The title of this section is updated to add limited reductions of funding.

Section 1606.3(a) has minor nomenclature changes to conform to the new definitions and terms, including the new definition of “substantial violation,” but without any material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule. The definition of a “substantial failure” remains in § 1606.3(a)(2) with two adjustments: 1) the LSC appropriations have been added as a measure of performance, and 2) the term “guidance” is changed to “guidelines or instructions” consistent with the use of those terms in lieu of “guidance” throughout the previous and revised rules.

Section 1606.3(b) is added to specify that LSC may impose a limited reduction of funding for substantial violations, but not substantial failures, when LSC determines that a termination, in whole or in part, is not warranted. As with terminations, LSC can base a limited reduction of funding only on substantial violations occurring within the past five years.

Section 1606.3(c), the former paragraph (b), is changed to add limited reductions of funding. The requirements for a “substantial violation” are moved, without material modifications that would change their meaning or application from the previous rule, to the new definition of “substantial violation.” As proposed in the NPRM those same criteria apply to the determination of the magnitude of a proposed termination or limited reduction of funding. LSC stated in the NPRM that consideration of these factors was already implicit in considerations of how much funding should be affected by a proposed enforcement mechanism. SCLAID's comments recommended that LSC add an entire new section and criteria for determinations of magnitude, including the impact on client services and other funding for the recipient. The final rule does not do so because the magnitude of an enforcement action should relate directly to the magnitude of the violation and deterrence of future violations. LSC has general discretion to consider the totality of the situation when deciding how to proceed with an enforcement action to foster ongoing compliance while minimizing disruption of client services.

This section does not include any material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule. All changes are technical adjustments.

The language of section 1606.4(b)(4) is modified to clarify that it applies to any arrangements that are covered by debarments, not only subgrants or subcontracts, and that reference to a debarred “IPA,” which is undefined in the previous rule, means any debarred independent public accountant or other auditor.

Last, the reference to the “effective date of this rule” in § 1606.4(b)(5) is changed to December 23, 1998, the effective date of the previous rule.

The heading and § 1606.5(a) are updated to remove the limited reference to terminations and debarments in order to include limited reductions of funding. These procedures are available for, and apply to, all part 1606 enforcement mechanisms.

A new § 1606.5(b) is added to correspond to the new level of review in § 1606.10 for limited reductions of funding. The LSC President, or another senior LSC employee, will hear any final appeal of a limited reduction draft final decision. Those procedures are modeled on the 45 CFR part 1630 final appeal procedures for disallowed costs. The person hearing the appeal must have not been involved in the prior proceedings. The final rule requires that LSC designate the person to hear the final appeal before LSC considers whether or not to proceed with a preliminary determination for a limited reduction of funding.

The title of this section is updated to include reference to a final decision, which may be issued under this section if the recipient does not request any review of the preliminary determination. The language of this section is updated for clarity and to include limited reductions of funding, without material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule.

Section 1606.6(a)(6) is added to explicitly provide an option for LSC to specify corrective action that could resolve the situation without a termination or limited reduction of funding. This language is based on the previous suspension rule at 45 CFR part 1623; it does not appear in the previous part 1606 rule. LSC is not required to provide the recipient with a corrective action option, and the recipient does not have a right to avoid a termination or limited reduction of funding through corrective actions unless explicitly authorized by LSC. This language provides a clear option for resolving these situations through corrective action if LSC determines that doing so would be sufficient pursuant to the new § 1606.7(a).

Section 1606.6(a)(7) is added to require that the preliminary determination summarize any prior attempts at resolution of the situation. The addition of this paragraph does not require LSC to seek resolution prior to initiating a part 1606 action. Rather, when LSC and the recipient have attempted to resolve the situation, the rule will now require that LSC summarize those attempts and make them part of the administrative record.

References to a “designated employee” in this section are replaced with references to the Corporation as the actor, consistent with the definition of Corporation.

The title and content of this section have been updated to expand and clarify the options available after a recipient receives a preliminary determination. As stated in the previous rule, the informal conference is designed to create the opportunity for narrowing the issues and exploring the possibility of settlement or compromise. The informal conference is retained without material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule. The rule is changed to permit any senior LSC employee to hold the informal conference rather than the previous requirement that it be held by the same employee who issued the preliminary determination. In some cases, the same employee should handle both matters to bring consistent perspective and experience to the matter. In other situations, it may foster an atmosphere of settlement or compromise to have different LSC employees handle each stage of the process.

This section now explicitly provides an option for the recipient to submit written materials in opposition to the preliminary determination without a request for an informal conference. This option to present arguments in writing only is based on the similar option in the suspension rule at 45 CFR part 1623; a conference is not required if the recipient requests only a paper review.

Paragraph (a) provides a new option for resolving a preliminarydetermination through adoption of any corrective action proposed by LSC, in its sole discretion, as a clear path to settlement of the issues. A corrective action proposed by the recipient that significantly differs from the LSC proposal may be considered at an informal conference but not as part of the § 1606.7(a) procedures. The recipient must agree to the terms and timing of implementation of the corrective actions to the satisfaction of LSC, as memorialized in a written compliance agreement. If, at any time, LSC determines that the recipient is not sufficiently implementing the corrective action, LSC can proceed to issue a draft final decision, subject to the further rights of review under later sections of this part. If a recipient chooses this new process, then the recipient cannot later request an informal conference under this section. This option responds to a comment that the proposed rule did not clearly address what would happen if the recipient adopted the suggested corrective action. It also implements suggestions from the LSC Board that the rule should provide better means of alternative resolution when appropriate.

The provisions regarding the informal conference have been revised to clarify the procedures, permit any senior LSC employee to hold the conference, and to require that a draft decision to proceed with the enforcement option contain a summary of the issues raised in the conference or in submitted written materials.

The title of this section is updated to specify that hearings are available only for terminations and debarments, but not for limited reductions of funding. There are no material modifications that would change the meaning or application of this section from the previous rule. The deadlines have been designated as business or calendar days consistent with the new definition of days.

The title and language of this section are updated to specify that the recommended decision is applicable only to hearings for terminations or debarments. The only substantive change is a new § 1606.9(a)(2) that permits the hearing officer to recommend reducing a termination to below five percent, and thus convert a termination into a limited reduction of funding. The previous rule permitted the hearing officer to recommend terminations only, which would exclude the option of funding reductions of below five percent. Reference to limited reductions of funding is added to § 1606.9(a)(3) for consistency without any material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule referencing terminations or debarments.

This section is updated to add direct appeals to the LSC President, or designee, of draft final decisions for limited reductions of funding. This type of appeal is similar to the final appeal of a disallowed cost decision in 45 CFR part 1630. The final review is identical as that provided for in other part 1606 actions, with one exception. For limited reduction of funding appeals to the President, in which there in no right to review by a hearing officer, new paragraph (d) provides that the President must not have had prior involvement with the limited reduction of funding proceedings under this part. That provision is also based on the part 1630 process, which requires that the President not review actions in which he or she had prior involvement. As discussed in the FNPRM, the President is not disqualified merely because he or she is briefed about the situation, contacted by the recipient or other parties, or otherwise is aware but not actively involved in the part 1606 proceedings.

A number of comments recommended that the hearing officers or the final decision maker for appeals be non-LSC employees. As discussed earlier, in 1996 Congress lifted the LSC Act requirement for enforcement actions to be reviewed by an independent hearing examiner. The final rule does not change the impartiality requirement for hearing officers for terminations and debarment that they have not had prior involvement in the part 1606 enforcement action being reviewed. It also does not change the ability of LSC to suspend funding for up to thirty days without impartial review. For the new limited reductions of funding and suspensions of over thirty days, the final rule provides the same requirement of impartiality for the LSC President or other senior LSC employee providing final review of the matter. These impartiality requirements are sufficient for the process rights of recipients within the statutory framework and LSC's understanding of Congress's expectations for LSC's enforcement procedures. Other changes to this section clarify the process and deadlines without substantive changes. The FNPRM suggested adding the § 1606.6(a) preliminary determination requirements to any final decision modifying or extending the draft final decision. That suggestion is not retained in this final rule because it became apparent during the comment period that those requirements are tailored to the preliminary determination,e.g.,including the notice of rights to appeal and continued funding, and are not appropriate for final decisions.

This section is updated for clarity without material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule. Section 1606.11(c)(3) is updated to require that LSC provide the final decision to the recipient within five days of the expiration of the appeal period. The previous rule stated that the recommended decision would become final if not appealed, but did not state when it must be provided as a final decision.

This section is updated for clarity without material modifications that would change its meaning or application from the previous rule.

This section is updated to include reference to limited reductions of funding. A new § 1606.13(d) is added to state explicitly that the manner of implementation is at the sole discretion of LSC. For example, depending on the situation, including the timing of the action in the grant year and funding term, LSC may choose to pro-rate a partial termination or limited reduction through the remaining grant payments or to withhold the reduced funds in one lump sum. The previous rule did not address that issue and this new section is consistent with the options available to LSC within its discretion under that rule.

Section 1606.13(e), the former paragraph (d), is modified to remove the reference to using the terminated or reduced funds for the same service area, as proposed in the NPRM. The previous rule provided that LSC may keep the funds in the same service area or otherwise reallocate them for any basic field purposes. Some of the comments recommended keeping the existing rule. As discussed in the NPRM, this language is eliminated because it couldlead to an erroneous expectation that LSC would give preference to keeping the funds from a termination in part or from a limited reduction of funding in the same service area in which the same recipient continued to provide services through the end of the funding term. LSC had the authority under the previous rule and has the authority under this final rule to exercise its discretion to determine the best use of these funds in light of considerations such as the needs of the service area, the behavior of the recipient, and other uses of recovered funds for emergencies or special grants in other service areas. The change in language does not change the substance of the rule.

One technical update to 45 CFR part 1614 relates to this rulemaking. Although not included in the NPRM or FNPRM, this update includes no material modifications that would change the meaning or application of this section from the previous rule and is necessary to harmonize that rule with this rulemaking and other prior changes to the LSC regulations. Part 1614 requires that an LSC recipient expend an amount equivalent to at least 12.5 percent of a basic field award on private attorney involvement (PAI) activities. The failure to do so may result in LSC withholding or recovering some funds from the recipient, depending on the circumstances. Section 1614.7 of the previous rule provided the requirements for those situations and stated that the withholding or recovery of funds for a failure to meet the part 1614 requirements does not constitute either a termination or a denial of refunding. The reference to terminations is changed to a reference to any action under 45 CFR part 1606. The reference to denials of refunding is eliminated, as LSC withdrew the denial of refunding regulation in 1998.

This final rule incorporates some substantive changes and some extensive structural, but non-substantive, changes to 45 CFR part 1618 as proposed in the FNPRM. The significant substantive change to the rule involves adding the imposition of special grant conditions during a grant year to § 1618.5(c). The final rule also changes references to violations of the LSC Act throughout the rule to violations of the LSC requirements as the term “LSC requirements” is defined for use in parts 1606 and 1623. The previous rule defined the “Act” as the LSC Act or the LSC rules and regulations, but did not include other applicable laws, such as the LSC appropriations riders, or LSC guidelines and instructions, which have been included in both parts 1606 and 1623 as they have been updated over the past thirty years. Part 1618 is both outdated and confusing in this regard. The new definition of LSC requirements is based on the language used in parts 1606 and 1623, and this definition applies in all three sections for consistency and clarity.

Some of the comments suggested changing the threshold standard under § 1618.5(b) for proceeding to enforcement actions under parts 1606 and 1623. The rule provides that LSC can proceed to consider enforcement actions:

45 CFR 1618.5(b). Those comments suggested adding a “knowing and willful” standard to this section. The OIG's comment notes that the 1998 rulemaking considered using “intent” as a factor in the standard for terminations and choose instead to use the defined term “knowing and willful.” The final rule does not change this language and retains the longstanding “intent” prong of the part 1618 analysis consistent with original structure of the rule under the LSC Act and the 1998 changes to parts 1606 and 1623. “Knowing and willful” was adopted in 1998 as a defined term in those regulations as one of many factors for consideration, while “intentionally violated” was retained in part 1618.

The purpose section is updated to incorporate the broader scope of the LSC requirements.

The definitions section is updated to incorporate the broader scope of the LSC requirements. A definition of “violation” has been added to make clear that the scope of violations at issue under this rule is limited to the LSC requirements.

The language of this section is updated for clarity and to reference the new definitions.

The language of this section is updated for clarity and to reference the new definitions. A new § 1618.4(c) is added to emphasize that this section does not create rights for recipient employees. Rather, this section is designed to ensure that recipients adopt and follow procedures designed to ensure that employees implement and follow the LSC requirements, and that the recipient applies those requirements consistent with LSC's interpretation of them.

The language of this section is updated for clarity and to reference the new definitions and include reference to limited reductions of funding. Section 1618.5(a) has a new final sentence clarifying that LSC's investigation of a possible violation may be limited to determining if the recipient is taking sufficient actions.

The existing language in § 1618.5(b) requires “attempts at informal resolution” prior to proceeding to consider enforcement actions under some circumstances. There are no changes to this language, but LSC notes that the informal resolution referenced here includes consideration of remedial actions, preventative actions, and sanctions, as discussed in the FNPRM.

A new § 1618.5(c) is added regarding immediate special grant conditions. Under previous LSC practice, special grant conditions were imposed only when a new grant was awarded or an existing grant was renewed. Under that practice, a recipient had an opportunity to consider the special grant conditions prior to agreeing to them. The NPRM proposed language to permit LSC to impose immediate grant conditions any time that the § 1618.5(b) thresholds are met. The FNPRM revised that language to permit immediate special grant conditions only after LSC determines that three factors are met: (1) A violation has occurred, (2) corrective actions are required, and (3) special grant conditions are needed prior to the next renewal or competition. The immediate special grant conditions enable LSC to convert required corrective actions contained in reports, such as OCE reports, into specific grant requirements.

The NPRM proposed to change only the language regarding the thirty-day limit on non-audit based suspensions to increase it to a ninety-day limit. The FNPRM, and this final rule, make a number of non-substantive, technical changes to harmonize the suspensionrule with 45 CFR part 1606. In the previous rule, some, but not all, of the relevant definitions are repeated in both rules. The final rule provides a cross reference to the definitions in 45 CFR part 1606 for consistency. An additional change is made in the final rule to permit commencement of other enforcement actions during a suspension. This change is consistent with the overall rulemaking and the revised enforcement mechanisms structure.

Comments on the NPRM and the FNPRM recommended an appeal process for suspensions, especially those that go beyond certain dollar thresholds. The OIG agreed that some appeal might be appropriate, but expressed concern about adopting appeal procedures that are too cumbersome and emphasized that appeals should occur during the pendency of the suspension, which is meant to protect funds from future misuse. The final rule includes an appeal procedure that mirrors the procedure for limited reductions of funding, which is based on the 45 CFR part 1630 disallowed cost appeal procedure.

The OIG also recommended eliminating any time limit for suspensions, and permitting suspensions to continue until compliance, as is the case for audit-based suspensions. In the 1998 rulemaking, LSC decided to retain a thirty-day limit on suspensions because LSC determined that a termination process was more appropriate than a prolonged suspension. 63 FR 64636 at 64638 (1998). In this rulemaking LSC has expanded suspensions to ninety days to make them more effective in short timeframes, but LSC continues to believe that terminations or reductions of funding with their corresponding procedures are more appropriate for intractable concerns that cannot be resolved within a limited suspension period.

The definitions of “knowing and willful” and “recipient” are deleted and replaced with a cross-reference to the definitions in 45 CFR part 1606, which include both of those terms. The definitions are identical in the previous rules and this change makes no substantive change to either. The use of the same definitions for other terms in both rules provides consistency throughout the regulations,e.g.,“LSC requirements” and “substantial violation.”

The previous rule provided a definition of “substantial violation” identical to the use of that term in 45 CFR part 1606. The term is deleted in favor of the new cross-reference to definitions in part 1606. There are no substantive changes to the definition.

Similarly the term “LSC requirements” replaces the list of LSC requirements that appeared in this rule and in other places in the regulations. It is defined in 45 CFR part 1618 and cross-referenced in 45 CFR part 1606.

In response to comments regarding the need for appeals of suspensions, LSC is adding an appeals process for suspensions that last longer than thirty days. The process is specified in § 1623.4(a) and (h). This addition preserves the previous rule's requirements for commencing suspensions based on notice and an informal meeting and continuing those suspensions for up to thirty days without further appeal. If the suspension lasts longer than thirty days, then the recipient may appeal to the LSC President. The appeal procedures are based on the new part 1606 limited reduction of funding appeal procedures, which are in turn based on the part 1630 disallowed cost appeal procedures. The discussion of those procedures in part 1606 applies equally to this section. Unlike part 1606 actions, the suspension will continue pending the appeal. The final rule requires that LSC issue a suspension decision within fifteen calendar days of receipt of the appeal in order to resolve the appeal promptly.

New § 1623.4(d) and (e) are copied from the revised informal conference procedures in 45 CFR part 1606. That language emphasizes seeking settlement or compromise and provides that the informal meeting can be conducted by the same employee who issued the proposed determination, or another senior LSC employee.

Section 1623.4(k), regarding audit-based suspensions, is updated to state that the new appeal process does not apply to audit-based suspensions, preserving the previous rule's requirements.

A technical change is made to § 1623.6(b) to state that suspended funds will be “released” at the end of the suspension period rather than “returned.”

For the reasons set forth above, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 2996g(3), LSC proposes to amend 45 CFR chapter XVI as follows:

The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending 47 CFR 1.80 in theFederal Registeron November 29, 2012, (77 FR 71131). The amended rules are necessary to implement the enforcement provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 as applicable to the PSAP Do-Not-Call registry.

As published, the final regulations inadvertently created two § 1.80(b)(7)'s in the Commission's rules and needs to be corrected accordingly.

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

This document announces that, on January 23, 2013, OMB approved, for a period of six months, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission'sOrder,FCC 12-1777, published at 78 FR 5750, January 28, 2013. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1181. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of paragraph 16 and Appendix A of document DA 12-1777. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Judith Boley-Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1181, in your correspondence. The Commission also will accept comments via email. Please send them toPRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 23, 2013, for the information collection requirements contained in paragraph 16 and Appendix A of document DA 12-1777.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1181.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number:3060-1181.

OMB Approval Date:January 23, 2013.

OMB Expiration Date:July 31, 2013.

Title:Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, DA 12-1777.

Form Number:N/A.

Respondents:Incumbent local exchange carriers, and state regulatory entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses:1,443 respondents; 1,443 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:26 hours.

Frequency of Response:Annually if changes to study area boundaries; biannually for recertification or previously submitted data.

Obligation to Respond:Required. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 254(b).

Total Annual Burden:7,924 hours for in-house work for large incumbent local exchange carriers

Total Annual Cost:$705,935.00 contracting costs for small incumbent local exchange carriers.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The Commission is not requesting thatrespondents submit confidential information to the Commission. Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:In November 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission adopted aReport and Order(Order), in WC Docket No. 10-90; WC Docket No. 05-337; DA 12-1777, 78 FR 5750, Connect America Fund; High-Cost Universal Service Support.

TheOrderadopts data specifications for collecting study area boundaries for purposes of implementing various reforms adopted as part of theUSF/ICC Transformation Order,76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. In theUSF/ICC Transformation FNPRM,76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, the Commission sought comment on a process to reduce support where such an unsubsidized competitor offers voice and broadband service to a substantial majority, but not 100 percent of the study area. Study area boundaries are needed to determine whether unsubsidized competitors offer service within all or a portion of an incumbent's study area

TheOrderrequires incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to submit esri shapefiles of their study area boundaries, with each submitted shapefile representing a single study area in each state that the incumbent LEC serves. The shapefile for each study area must depict each exchange within the study area as a closed, non-overlapping polygon. Each exchange-area polygon must constitute one record in the shapefile and must contain associated data with certain attributes used to identify the exchange, such as the exchange name and CLLI (Common Language Location Identifier) code. The Bureau will collect study area boundary data at the exchange level so that it can distinguish those exchanges that are subject to “frozen” support levels from those that are not, and so that the data can be updated to reflect any exchanges that have been transferred from one incumbent LEC to another.

TheOrderfinds that collecting study area boundary data in an esri shapefile format best balances the need for accurate and timely data with the goal of minimizing burdens on providers. TheOrderstates that the esri shapefile is the best among possible data formats. Since its introduction in the 1990s, the esri shapefile has become the industry standard for storing, depicting, and analyzing spatial data. As a result, there are multiple geographic information system (GIS) platforms capable of creating and managing esri shapefiles, and multiple software programs can convert spatial data stored in other formats (such as MapInfo) to an esri shapefile format. Incumbent LECs that do not already have esri shapefiles of their study area boundaries may either use software and information technology, and/or rely on the expertise of consultants, to develop a shapefile based on the presumably known locations of their physical plant and their customers. Thus, the benefits gained by requiring incumbent LECs to provide and verify esri shapefiles warrant the potential burdens imposed. Incumbent LECs or other entities are not expected to conduct physical surveys in order to produce the degree of accuracy required by the data specification. Incumbent LECs reasonably can be expected to know where they offer services and thus should be able to create and submit an esri shapefile to the degree of accuracy required based largely on existing information.

State entities are well situated to assist incumbent LECs with their responsibilities under this R&O. Involvement of state entities that undertake or assist with this data collection effort could reduce the burden on incumbent LECs and on Commission staff, particularly because some states already have digitized service territory boundaries. State entities wishing to submit such data should notify the Commission in writing of their intention to do so and submit that notice to WC Docket No. 10-90 via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). The Bureau will release a Public Notice identifying the deadlines for these notices (as well as the deadlines for the shapefile submissions and incumbent LEC certifications). In cases where a state entity uploads data to the Commission-sponsored Web site on behalf of one or more incumbent LECs, each incumbent LEC whose data are submitted by the state must log into the Web site to review the shapefile. If the incumbent LEC has a reasonable basis to conclude the shapefile is correct, the incumbent LEC can certify and submit the data using the same web interface. The reporting obligation set forth in the Order ultimately rests with incumbent LECs; state entities may not certify as to the accuracy of the data on behalf of incumbent LECs. If the incumbent LEC cannot certify that the data submitted by the state entities are correct, the incumbent LEC must so notify the Bureau and upload corrected data, either on its own or in conjunction with the state entity that filed it. The incumbent LEC can then certify that the study area boundary data are accurate.

After reviewing and, if necessary, correcting the study area boundary data submitted by itself or a state entity, each incumbent LEC must certify the accuracy of the data. An official of the firm, such as a corporate officer, managing partner, or sole proprietor, must provide an electronic signature certifying that he or she has examined the study area boundary shapefile and that, to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, the data contained in the shapefile are accurate and correct. The certifying official may be different from the GIS specialist or other individual who developed the study area boundary shapefile, and the web interface will allow filers to enter contact information for both the certifying official and the individual most knowledgeable about the spatial data.

Once the shapefiles have been submitted and certified, the Bureau will review the study area boundaries and resolve any voids and overlaps. Overlap areas would be those shown to be served by more than one incumbent LEC, while void areas would be those shown to be served by no incumbent LEC. The Bureau will attempt to distinguish unpopulated void areas from populated void areas that are likely to be served by some incumbent LEC, in which case an error in the submitted data may need to be resolved. The Bureau may also seek help from state commissions to resolve gaps, voids, and overlap issues. During review, if boundary overlaps or void areas are found in the submitted boundary data, the Bureau will contact the filer(s) to resolve such issues. Once these issues are resolved, the Bureau will ask incumbent LECs to recertify the new, corrected boundaries. When a complete set of the reconciled boundaries has been compiled the study area boundary data will be published.

Incumbent LECs must provide updated data when their study area boundaries change. Incumbent LECs and/or state entities must submit updated data by March 15 of each year, beginning the year following the initial data submissions, showing any changes made by December 31 of the previous year. The incumbent LEC is responsible for making any necessary changes and for filing the revised shapefile. The changes cannot be made using the web interface itself; incumbent LECs will need to modify the shapefile. However, incumbent LECs can upload a revised shapefile to the same Web site used for the original filing. In addition, all incumbent LECs must recertify theirstudy area boundary data every two years. Filers will need to examine, through the web interface described below, the boundary data previously submitted, and then either certify that they are correct or submit revised data.

In the near future, the Bureau will issue a Public Notice providing detailed instructions and announcing the deadline for the submission of data and providing further filing information. The Commission plans to submit information required to obtain OMB review and approval to extend approval of this collection.

The snapper-grouper fishery includes golden tilefish in the South Atlantic and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Under 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2), NMFS is required to reduce the trip limit in the commercial sector for golden tilefish from 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip when 75 percent of the fishing year quota is met prior to September 1, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. As implemented by the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 12 (77 FR 61295, October 9, 2012), the commercial quota for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 541,295 lb (245,527 kg), gutted weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.42(e)(2). Based on current statistics, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota of 541,295 lb (245,527 kg), gutted weight, for golden tilefish will be reached on or before February 18, 2013. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial golden tilefish trip limit to 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, in the South Atlantic EEZ from 12:01 a.m., local time, on February 18, 2013, until the quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, or through December 31, 2013, whichever occurs first.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.

Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this trip limit reduction would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

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 50CFR 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 A season allowance of the 2013 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 6,459 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012) and inseason adjustment to the final 2013 harvest specifications for Pacific cod (78 FR 267, January 3, 2013).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2013 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 6,449 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 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 vessels using pot gear in the Central 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 vessels using pot gear in the Central 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 February 7, 2013.

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.