1. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has issued rules setting out the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635 (Standards). The FERC Supplemental Standards at 5 CFR part 3401 were issued to provide an additional degree of assurance that agency decisions are not influenced by non-merit considerations and to protect the integrity of the Commission's programs and processes. These rules were designed to prevent Commission employees from taking actions that violate, or may appear to violate, conflict of interest laws or certain criminal statutes, or may create an appearance of a loss of impartiality.

2. The Commission has reexamined its prohibition on ownership of securities and is making several revisions to the FERC Supplemental Standards pursuant to its rulemaking authority under 5 CFR Part 2635. The Commission has determined, with OGE's concurrence, that certain amendments to its existing regulations are needed.

3. The FERC Supplemental Standards generally prohibit employees from acquiring or holding securities of entities regulated by the Commission. 5 CFR 3401.102(a). The Commission has determined that the general prohibition does not cover all entities that may be affected by Commission regulation. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), which amended section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 1 gives the Commission exclusive authority to approve an application for siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under section 3 of the NGA. EPAct 2005 defines an LNG terminal as including “all natural gas facilities located onshore or in State waters that are used to receive, unload, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas that is imported to the United States from a foreign country, exported to a foreign country from the United States, or transported in interstate commerce by waterborne vessel.” 15 U.S.C. 717a(11). The acquisition or ownership of securities in an LNG terminal is not prohibited, however, by existing FERC Supplemental Standards.

4. Also, the Commission's Supplemental Standards currently prohibit only the acquisition or holding of any securities of “any electric utility engaged in the wholesale sale or transmission of electricity or having obtained an interconnection or wheeling order under Part II of the Federal Power Act.” However, the Supplemental Standards do not expressly apply to ownership of securities of a “transmitting utility,” an entity redefined in EPAct to mean “an entity (including an entity described in section 201 (f)) that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy—(A) in interstate commerce; (B) for the sale of electric energy at wholesale.” 16 U.S.C. 796(23).

5. The Commission recognizes that the existing general prohibition is not broad enough to expressly give the Commission the flexibility to prohibit the acquisition or holding of securities in all FERC regulated entities. To close the gap and to protect the integrity of the Commission's programs and processes, the Commission amends the general prohibition by prohibiting an employee, and the spouse or minor children of an employee, from owning securities of a “transmitting utility” and a liquefied natural gas terminal as defined by section 3 of the Natural Gas Act.

6. The amendment also provides flexibility to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) to amend the list of entities whose securities an employee, or spouse or minor child of an employee, may not acquire or hold due to changes in legislation or regulation. The regulation codifies the Office of General Counsel's practice of maintaining a prohibited securities list that bars Commission employees from acquiring or holding securities of a company found on the list.

7. The Final Rule codifies current practice that a prohibited securities list shall be maintained by the Office of General Counsel's General and Administrative Law section, updated annually or on a more frequent basis, and published and distributed on the Commission's Intranet Web site. The regulation also gives the DAEO discretion to determine whether the securities of an entity otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a) may be omitted from the prohibited securities list because the entity does not present concerns of impartiality and further allows the DAEO to determine whether the securities of an entity not included in paragraph (a) should, nevertheless, be deemed prohibited because the acquisition or holding of securities of such a particular entity presents concerns of impartiality. The discretion is appropriate because the types of entities currently prohibited may change over time due to corporate restructuring, mergers, legislation and regulation.

8. The amendment clarifies the Commission's longstanding exception to the general prohibition of paragraph 3401.102(a) for interests in mutual funds that do not have a stated objective of concentrating their investments in prohibited securities. The exception was previously included in the definition of the term “securities,” but caused confusion. The rule continues to prohibit holdings in a mutual fund if the stated objective is to concentrate the fund's investments in securities prohibited by paragraph 3401.102(a).

9. The amendment codifies the current reporting and disqualification requirements for interests in prohibited securities.

10. Paragraph 3401.102(d)(1), Reporting of prohibited securities, requires written notification to the DAEO of any interest prohibited under paragraph 3401.102(a). A new employee must report a prohibited financial interest within 30 days of the commencement of employment. If a prohibited security is acquired without specific intent after employment begins, such as through gift, inheritance, or marriage, the acquisition must be reported within 30 days of the acquisition of such interest.

11. Paragraph 3401.102(d)(2), Divestiture of prohibited securities, requires that, except in the case where a waiver has been granted pursuant to paragraph 3401.102(e), prohibited financial interests must be divested within 90 days from the date divestiture is directed by the DAEO. This provision is consistent with 5 CFR 2635.403(d).

12. Paragraph 3401.102(d)(3), Disqualification pending divestiture, codifies the current agency practice of requiring that an employee disqualify himself or herself pending the divestiture discussed above from participating in particular matters which, as a result of continued ownership of prohibited securities, would affect the financial interests of the employee, or those of the spouse or minor child of the employee. The amendment continues to allow waiver from the disqualification rule where 5 CFR 2635.402(d) (pertaining to waiver of or exemptions from disqualification under 18 U.S.C. 208) applies.

13. Finally, paragraph 3401.102(d)(4), Special tax treatment of gain on divested securities, clarifies that an employee may be eligible to defer paying capital gains tax on investments sold to comply with the conflict of interest requirements under 26 U.S.C. 1043 and subpart J of 5 CFR part 2634.

14. The waiver section is substantially the same as the existing waiver provision. The rule adds a minor revision by explicitly requiring that waivers granted by the DAEO be in writing. The writing requirement is consistent with 5 CFR 2635.402(d)(2)(ii).

15. The term securities is revised to eliminate the portion of the definition related to mutual funds.

16. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public comment, and a 30-day delayed effective date are not applicable to this final rule because this rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters and is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12866 and 12988.

17. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply.

18. The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, does not apply because this rulemaking does not contain information collection requirements subject to the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulation includes rules relating to agency management or personnel; it also includes rules of agency organization, procedure or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. As such, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 804, this regulation is effective January 10, 2011.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission, with the concurrence of OGE, amends Part 3401 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis ), an insect native to China, Japan, Korea, and the Isle of Hainan, is a destructive pest of hardwood trees. It attacks many healthy hardwood trees, including maple, horse chestnut, birch, poplar, willow, and elm. In addition, nursery stock, logs, green lumber, firewood, stumps, roots, branches, and wood debris of half an inch or more in diameter are subject to infestation. The beetle bores into the heartwood of a host tree, eventually killing the tree. Immature beetles bore into tree trunks and branches, causing heavy sap flow from wounds and sawdust accumulating at tree bases.

The regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of ALB to noninfested areas of the United States.

In an interim rule  1 effective and published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2009 (74 FR 57243-57245, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0014), we amended the regulations by adding a portion of Worcester County, MA, to the list of quarantined areas in § 301.51-3(c) and by updating the description of the quarantined area in the Borough of Staten Island in the City of New York, NY.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before January 4, 2010. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

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

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

The emerald ash borer (EAB) ( Agrilus planipennis ) is a destructive woodboring insect that attacks ash trees ( Fraxinus spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues.

The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States.

In an interim rule  1 effective and published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2009 (74 FR 47999-48001, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0072), we amended § 301.53-3(c) to add portions of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of areas quarantined for EAB.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before November 20, 2009. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

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

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

This rule affirms an interim rule that amended the EAB regulations by adding areas in Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of areas quarantined because of EAB.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site ( see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

If left unregulated, the spread of EAB could negatively impact several industries including nurseries, timber operations, and landscaping. These potential economic impacts would likely be much greater than government program costs and any additional costs incurred from the expansion of the quarantine area. While some firms may have been negatively affected by the interim rule, those effects will be limited to those firms that ship regulated products interstate or from quarantined areas to areas that are not under quarantine. Such firms will be required to obtain a certificate or limited permit from an APHIS inspector in order to comply with the regulation or enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS for the inspection and certification of the articles to be moved. Additional restrictions on movement during adult fly season (roughly May through September) may result in additional impacts on entities in some quarantined counties. Limited information was available on the extent to which firms in the potentially affected industries deal in ash products.

Pine shoot beetle (PSB) is a destructive forest pest that attacks both managed and natural stands of pine and especially affects weak and dying trees. The beetle has been found in a variety of pine species ( Pinus spp.) in the United States. Scotch pine ( P. sylvestris ) is the pest's preferred host. PSB has been reported to also occasionally attack other conifers such as fir ( Abies spp.) and spruce ( Picea spp.) at low levels. During “shoot feeding,” young beetles tunnel into the center of pine shoots (usually those from the current year's growth), causing stunted and distorted growth in host trees. Large infestations of PSB typically kill most of the lateral shoots near the tops of trees. In addition, PSB is a vector of several diseases of pine trees.

The regulations in 7 CFR 301.50 through 301.50-10 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of certain regulated articles from quarantined areas in order to prevent the spread of PSB into noninfested areas of the United States.

In an interim rule  1 effective and published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2009 (74 FR 48003-48005, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0111), we amended the regulations by adding the entire State of Ohio and counties in Maine and Indiana to the list of quarantined areas in § 301.50-3(c).

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before November 20, 2009. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38066). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for cracking, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposed an optional preventative modification of the aft pressure bulkhead web, which would terminate certain repetitive detailed inspections.

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

Boeing requested that we change the second sentence of paragraph (e) of the AD to state that the FAA “is issuing this AD to detect and repair cracking, or to modify structure to prevent cracking, in the aft pressure bulkhead web * * *” The commenter stated that the original paragraph specified that the AD is being issued “to prevent cracking,” whereas the AD provides modification instructions to prevent cracking, as well as instructions to repair cracking, and the requested language is more correct.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree to change the AD to say “detect and correct cracking” because the AD provides those instructions, and we have changed paragraph (e) accordingly. We disagree with including “modify structure to prevent cracking” because the AD does not mandate the preventive modification. The modification to prevent cracking is available as an option in the AD and in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0232, dated September 23, 2009, the service information referenced in the NPRM; we have made no further change to the AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that we remove “* * * in the area around the hydraulic line support bracket on the left side * * *” from paragraph (g) of the AD. The commenter stated that airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2, do not have that hydraulic bracket installed, and therefore cannot be inspected “around the bracket.” Boeing stated further that the service bulletin specifies an inspection in the entire bay of the web, and the requested change would cover all the subject airplanes and prevent confusion.

We agree with the commenter's request, for the reasons given, and we have changed paragraph (g) of the AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM we refer only to Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0232, dated September 23, 2009, for the applicable compliance time. The commenter stated that paragraph (g)(2) of the AD covers only airplanes of Group 1, Configuration 2, which are addressed only in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E. of that service bulletin.

We agree with the commenter's request, for the reasons given, and we have changed paragraph (g)(2) of the AD accordingly. We have also changed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD to only refer to Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0232, dated September 23, 2009.

We have clarified that for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, and Group 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0232, dated September 23, 2009, doing the repair specified in paragraph (h) of the AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the AD.

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

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

We estimate that this AD affects 243 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the State of Design issues MCAI against a product that is certificated for operation in the United States, the FAA evaluates this information and either issues a corresponding U.S. AD or completes a no action required (NAR) form. In 1988, the FAA's Brussels, Belgium office evaluated MCAIs. When the Brussels office determined an AD was necessary, the corresponding Directorate issued an AD for the product. NAR forms were completed by the Brussels office. When a NAR form was completed, the Directorates did not always receive a copy since they were not required to take action.

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, issued AD 88-176 Grob, dated August 15, 1988, to apply to the GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG G103 twin-seat gliders. That AD required inspection and replacement of the spar spigot assembly to prevent fatigue failure of the spigot. The FAA issued AD 90-02-09 (55 FR 269, January 4, 1990), effective February 5, 1990, to mandate replacement of the spigot assembly for the G103 twin-seat versions of the glider.

The LBA issued 91-5/2 Grob, dated February 1, 1991, to apply to the GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG G102 single-seat gliders. The MCAI states:

The FAA inadvertently did not issue an AD on the single-seat versions at the time the LBA issued AD 91-5/2 Grob. The FAA finds no AD or NAR information to correspond with German AD 91-5/2 Grob from that time period.

In 1997/1998, the responsibility to evaluate MCAIs transferred from Brussels to the Directorates. The Directorates assimilated all of the Brussels information into the Directorate information, identifying if ADs were issued, if NAR forms were completed, or if neither action was taken. During this time, the Small Airplane Directorate issued a total of 310 AD actions in fiscal year (FY) 1998. This was an increase of 79 percent over the 173 total actions issued in FY-97, and a 121 percent increase over the 140 total actions issued in FY-96. This workload increase contributed to the FAA not identifying the German AD 91-5/2 Grob as an item without a U.S. AD or NAR correspondence associated with it.

In early 2005, through discussions with Grob representatives, we determined that we needed to address the unsafe condition for the G102 single-seat versions of the glider in the United States.

After further review of the data, we determined AD action is necessary to correct an unsafe condition on the G102 versions of the glider for the following reasons:

• Cracks have been found on the wing spigot assemblies installed on the G102 single-seat gliders. Several of these cracks were internal to the spigot and were not visually detectable until the component failed.

• Cracks in the wing spigot assembly pin-to-plate interface could cause the spar spigot to fail with little or no warning.

• The manufacturer has maintained their position that the original wing spigot assembly design is inadequate to sustain the structure for the operational service life of the aircraft.

The public responded to this published notice, and the FAA appreciates the numerous comments submitted for consideration in addressing this important airworthiness issue. Our comment disposition took a considerable amount of time researching and organizing data to adequately address those comments. Through the comment disposition process, we found that the material required for the repair was not available in the United States and an undue cost burden would have been placed on operators to get the repair material from Germany. We coordinated the use of an alternate resin/hardener for the repair that is available in the United States.

The original design of the spar spigot utilizes a steel pin with a welded steel plate adjacently attached. The welded interface between the pin and the plate is the critical area subjected to structural fatigue. This mode of failure has resulted in a redesign (design enhancement) of the spar spigot assembly that uses no welds and has additional filleting to increase part strength, durability, and enhances reliability. Therefore, based on the potential severity of failure, the FAA determined that the originally designed spar spigots should be replaced.

When Grob Luft- und Raumfahrt (Grob) issued Service Bulletin TM 306-29; TM 320-5, issue date: October 11, 1990, there were no reports of crack occurrences in Germany. However, Grob implemented this measure to ensure the safety of their gliders.

The Gliding Federation of Australia's Airworthiness Directive number 370, Issue 2, dated January 10, 1991, stated a large percentage of their single-seat G102 series gliders, at that time, were found to contain cracks. The exact figure for the number of occurrences is not known. The results of one repair shop in Australia revealed that of 12 spigot assemblies replaced on the single-seat models, 7 were found to have cracks. Several of these cracks were internal to the spigot. Internal cracks located in this area would not be visually detectable until the component failed.

The LBA issued AD 91-5/2 Grob to mandate the action from Grob's service bulletin; this action was later adopted in Europe, New Zealand, Canada, and Brazil.

After evaluating the crack findings from the Gliding Federation of Australia, the position of Grob's technical advisors, and the actions of the German airworthiness authority, we determined it necessary to issue this AD action.

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

Cindy Brickner, John H. Campbell, David Forrest, Hartley L. Falbaum, Philippe C. Marchal, Bruce Stobbe, and the Soaring Society of America (SSA) cite lack of rationale to mandate the unconditional replacement of the wing main spigot assembly. The spar spigot assembly is serviceable, and there is no evidence or history of problems for the G102 series gliders. We infer the commenters want us to withdraw the NPRM.

We disagree with the comment. Because a failure has not occurred is no justification that imminent failure to this critical structure could not happen. The Grob Luft- und Raumfahrt Service Bulletin TM 306-29; TM 320-5, issue date: October 11, 1990, states that inspection and replacement of the spar spigot assembly was due to an increased occurrence of cracks found on Grob's single-seat Astir series that operated in Australia. The Gliding Federation of Australia has identified at least nine occurrences of cracks found during the inspection of the single-seat gliders. Consequently, the occurrences of cracked pins resulted in Australia issuing AD 370, Issue 2, dated January 10, 1991.

Although a critical failure of the spar spigot assembly has not been documented in the United States, Grob maintains that the original design of the wing spar spigot assembly is inadequate to meet the airframe life limits and can not be repaired as a long-term corrective action.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Cindy Brickner, Robert DeFabio, David M. Forrest, Philippe C. Marchal, Bruce Stobbe, and the SSA, request allowing frequent or annual inspections in lieu of the required wing main spigot replacement citing that inspections would provide adequate warning before spigot failure.

We disagree with the comment. Based on information from the manufacturer, the original design of the wing main spigot assembly uses materials and/or a configuration deemed inadequate to sustain the structure for the operation and service life of the aircraft.

The critical failure mode of the wing spar spigot assembly is at the weld of the steel pin-to-plate interface. Cracks in these welds could cause the spar spigot to fail with little or no warning. If this joint fails, then failure of the wing spar could occur. Considering this situation, using an inspection to determine airworthiness is not a comprehensive method for ensuring the safety of the airframe.

The spar spigot assembly is based on a safe-life design philosophy. A safe-life design structure must be able to sustain a certain number of events such as flights, landings, and/or flight hours with a low probability that the strength will degrade below its design ultimate value due to fatigue cracking. In this type of structural design, there is no redundant or backup structural element to retain the structure's residual strength after the failure or partial failure of the principle structural element: the pin-to-plate interface.

From the FAA's perspective, in a safe-life designed structure, the development of a detectable crack is considered fatigue failure. Since a safe-life evaluation usually does not include demonstration of crack growth rates or residual strength capability, we assume that the development of a detectable crack may result in a catastrophic failure of the structure. The replacement spar spigot assembly has been redesigned to be more robust due to the manufacturing process used along with additional filleting which enhances fatigue resistance.

The new design also removes the critical failure mode and the requirements for weld inspections. Therefore, at Grob's discretion, a design enhancement, not a work-around solution, was implemented in order to increase the safety of this structural interface.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Hartley L. Falbaum and Bruce Stobbe interpret that the German AD allows cracks to be blended out and the parts to remain in service. Consequently, there is adequate warning prior to failure. They request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the requirements of the proposed AD.

We disagree with the comment and the interpretation. The MCAI clearly states the requirements to inspect and replace the wing main spigot assembly. The Grob Luft- und Raumfahrt Service Bulletin TM 306-29; TM 320-5, issue date: October 11, 1990, authorizes crack removal by blending based on specific, detailed criteria. Regardless, if the criterion is or is not met, the wing main spigot assembly must be replaced within a given time. Finally, cracks in the welds of the pin-to-plate interface could cause the spar spigot to fail with little or no warning.

We are not changing this final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Cindy Brickner, John H. Campbell, Robert DeFabio, David Forrest, Hartley L. Falbaum, Bruce Stobbe, and the SSA express concerns that an adequate repair facility may not be available to do the repair.

We partially agree with this comment. The closing of Grob's repair facility in Bluffton, Ohio, leaves few repair facilities with direct experience in doing this work. However, 14 CFR part 65 provides that an appropriately rated mechanic with an inspection authorization or an appropriately rated mechanic under the oversight of a mechanic with an inspection authorization is approved for this level of repair. We are aware of the cost and travel impacts of this AD on the gliding community. However, this does not diminish the need to do the repair, and a glider that has not had the replacement of the wing main spigot assembly has a corresponding reduction in its value.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Robert DeFabio, Hartley L. Falbaum, Philippe C. Marchal, and Bruce Stobbe express concerns that fewer repair stations with less experienced personnel to do the repair will create a greater risk than the one the glider is currently exposed to.

We disagree with the comment. We issued AD 90-02-09, effective February 5, 1990, for the twin-seat version of the glider, which mandated replacement of the spigot assembly. Approximately 120 of the repairs have been made for this AD, all without incident or failure attributed to this rework. Further, the mandatory repair implemented worldwide has had no known failure.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Cindy Brickner and David Forrest express concern that since the closing of Grob's repair facility in Ohio, the parts, tools, and repair skills needed may not be available to do the proposed AD.

We disagree with the comment. Parts are available for the replacement of the wing main spigot assembly from Fiberglas-technik, Rudolph Linder GmbH & Co. KG; Steige 3, 88487 Walpertshofen; telephone: +49 7353 2243; fax: +49 7353 3096; e-mail: H.Lindner@t-online.de; Internet: http://www.LTB-Lindner.com. There is also a limited supply of parts from Composite Aircraft Repair, P.O. Box 2010, Moriarty, New Mexico 87035; telephone (505) 269-8234; e-mail: Robertmudd1u@aol.com. An appropriately rated mechanic with an inspection authorization or an appropriately rated mechanic under the oversight of a mechanic with an inspection authorization is approved to do this repair. Also, approximately 120 of the repairs have been made for a similar AD, all without incident or failure attributed to this rework. Further, the mandatory repair implemented worldwide has had no known failure.

After the NPRM was issued, we found that the material required for the repair was not available in the United States and an undue cost burden would have been placed on operators to get the repair material from Germany. This final rule AD action adds Grob Aircraft Repair Instructions No. RI-GROB-001, dated May 14, 2009, that lists an alternate resin/hardener available in the United States.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

The SSA requests FAA extend all compliance times to allow time to procure parts and schedule replacement of the wing main spigot assembly with a qualified repair facility.

The FAA agrees with the SSA's proposal to extend the compliance time for the initial inspection from 10 to 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of the AD and, if no cracks are found, increase the replacement time for the wing main spigot assembly from 12 to 15 months after the effective date of the AD.

John H. Campbell writes that the perceived defect is centered on the twin-seat version of the glider. This perceived defect should not include the single-seat version of this glider. He also writes that the twin-seat glider is certificated under the aerobatic category; the single-seat glider is certificated under the utility category. We infer that, based on the design and operation of the affected single-seat glider, the commenter wants the proposed AD withdrawn.

We disagree with this comment. The fact that the single-seat glider is lighter and certificated in the utility category is not relevant. The original design of the wing spar spigot assembly of the single-seat and twin-seat gliders is insufficient to meet the airframe life limits. The type design of the G102 series gliders is similar to the type design of the G103 series gliders. As a result, the German airworthiness authority issued its ADs. We concur with Grob and the German airworthiness authority that this is a required AD action.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

John Campbell writes that this issue was addressed more than 20 years ago and that many Grob sailplanes now have thousands of flight hours. The MCAI statement from the manufacturer in the NPRM is based on a decision made in Australia. Campbell asks why the FAA is addressing this now and what prompted action on this issue. He notes that the gliders made in the 1980s are bargain investments. The cost to repair is a large part of the total value of the glider. Although no specific change is requested, based on the comment, we infer that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn.

For unknown reasons, the FAA did not issue an AD on the single-seat versions of these gliders at the time the German airworthiness authority issued its AD. Further, a review of our records finds no explanation for the delay in addressing this issue. Nevertheless, a safety issue exists that must be addressed.

The Gliding Federation of Australia noted that in Australia, the single-seat G102 series gliders, which have a similar type design to the twin-seat versions, had reports of cracking in the welds of the pins. Consequently, the occurrences of cracked pins in several gliders resulted in Australia issuing AD 370, Issue: 2, dated January 10, 1991.

We recognize that doing this AD to maintain the glider's airworthiness is a financial burden. However, a glider that has not had the replacement of the wing main spigot assembly has a corresponding reduction in its value.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 79 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 25 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $840 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $234,235 or $2,965 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On January 8, 2010, we issued AD 2010-02-05, which applies to certain Airbus Model A300, A300-600, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600, and A380-800 series airplanes; and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243 airplanes.

We have received a report indicating that certain equipment of the flight deck door is defective. This condition, if not corrected, could jeopardize flight safety.

We reviewed the Airbus service bulletins identified in the following table.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, we issued AD 2010-02-05 to prevent failure of certain equipment of the flight deck door, which could jeopardize flight safety. The AD requires modifying the flight deck door.

We have determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment on AD 2010-02-05 were contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual notices issued on January 8, 2010, to the known U.S. owners and operators of affected Airbus Model A300, A300-600, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, A340-600, and A380-800 series airplanes; and Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243 airplanes. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-1279; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-258-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

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

On December 10, 2010, we issued Emergency AD 2010-26-53, which requires obtaining written approval from the Manager, Wichita ACO, to operate the airplane. The written approval must clearly state that operation is approved per Emergency AD 2010-26-53. This action was prompted by a Cessna Model LC41-550FG airplane that suffered a significant structural failure in the wing during a production acceptance flight test. The wing skin disbonded from the upper forward wing spar. The length of the disbond was approximately 7 feet.

Since issuing AD 2010-26-53, we determined the need to increase the serial numbers in the Applicability section and to correct a serial number in the Applicability section. We issued Emergency AD 2010-26-54, dated December 17, 2010, which retains the actions of the previous AD, adds serial numbers to the Applicability section, and corrects a serial number in the Applicability section.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in catastrophic failure of the wing due to disbonding of the wing skin from the wing spar.

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

This AD requires obtaining written approval from the Manager, Wichita ACO, to operate the airplane. The written approval must clearly state that operation is approved per Emergency AD 2010-26-54.

We consider this AD interim action.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because disbonding of the wing skin from the wing spar could result in catastrophic failure of the wing. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2010-1297 and Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-068-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

There are no labor or parts costs associated with this AD action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have received reports of cracking in the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel. On one airplane, the crack was 10.75 inches long, midway between stations (STA) 420 and 439, just above the lap joint at stringer 4L (left) of the chem-milled step. The airplane had accumulated 24,631 total flight cycles. On another airplane, there was an opening from a crack in the fuselage above and aft of the passenger entry doorway. One edge of the opening ran approximately 18 inches in the forward-to-aft direction; the other edge ran approximately 12 inches along the chem-milled pocket edge above stringer 4L. Additionally, a 1.3-inch crack was found in the skin forward of the opening in the adjacent skin bay also in the chem-milled step above stringer 4L. The airplane had accumulated 22,450 total flight cycles. The subject cracking is attributed to fatigue. Such cracking could initiate at multiple locations on the interior surface along the chem-milled step edges above the stringer 4L or 4R (right) lap splices of the skin. This condition, if not corrected, could result in pressure venting and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along the chem-milled step at stringers S-4L and S-4R, from STA 297 through 439, as specified in the options below. If any crack is found, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing for damage removal and repair instructions.

• Option A Inspection: An external detailed inspection of the STA 297 through 439 crown skin panel at stringers S-4L and S-4R lap joints.

• Option B Inspection: An external sliding probe eddy current inspection of the STA 297 through 439 crown skin panel at stringers S-4L and S-4R lap joints.

• Option C Inspection: An external spot probe medium frequency eddy current inspection of the STA 297 through 439 crown skin panel at stringers S-4L and S-4R lap joints.

The compliance time for all of the initial inspections is before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 30 days after the original issue date of the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. The repetitive interval is specified below.

• Option A: At intervals not to exceed 30 flight cycles.

• Option B: At intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles.

• Option C: At intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles.

The initial external detailed inspection specified in Option A, if done, is repeated until either the Option B or Option C inspection is accomplished within 90 days after the original date of the service bulletin, and thereafter, either the Option B or Option C inspection is repeated. Accomplishing the Option B or Option C inspection would eliminate the need for the Option A inspection.

A detailed external inspection may be applied no more than once for each repeat interval of 300 flight cycles to extend the Option B repeat inspection up to 330 flight cycles, and for each repeat interval of 200 flight cycles to extend the Option C inspection up to 230 flight cycles—not to exceed 30 flight cycles after accomplishing the inspection.

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010, also includes certain exceptions to the inspection of the edge of the chem-milled pocket under an existing external repair doubler.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the AD and the Service Information.”

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

We consider this AD interim action. An investigation is ongoing and no terminating action has been developed yet.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel could result in pressure venting and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA- 2010-1280; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-270-AD;” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 683 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 part 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 the Federal Register expensive 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.

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 the Federal Register expensive 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.

This document identifies recent updates to the product lists, which appear as 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule. 1 Publication of updated product lists in the Federal Register is consistent with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.

Authorization. The Commission process for periodic publication of updates was established in Order No. 445, April 22, 2010.

Changes. Since publication of the product lists in the Federal Register on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70124), the following changes to the competitive product list have been made:

1. Global Expedited Package Services—Non-published Rates 1 (MC2010-29 and CP2010-72), added November 22, 2010 (Order No. 593);

2. Parcel Return Service Contract 2 (MC2011-6 and CP2011-33), added December 2, 2010 (Order No. 602);

3. Global Plus 1B Contracts (MC2011-7, CP2011-39 and CP2011-40) and Global Plus 2B Contracts (MC2011-8, CP2011-41 and CP2011-42) added December 23, 2010 (Order Nos. 622 and 623);

4. Global Expedited Package Services—Non-published Rates 2 (MC2010-29 and CP2011-45), added December 30, 2010 (Order No. 630); and

5. Global Expedited Package Services—Non-published Rates 1 (MC2010-29 and CP2010-72), deleted December 30, 2010 (Order No. 630).

Updated product lists. The referenced changes to the competitive product list are included in the product lists following the Secretary's signature.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Wrightsville Beach/Quintiles Marathon Committee on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations of the S.R. 74 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4). The regulation requires the bridge to open on signal for vessels during all times except from 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. it will open on the hour and every third and fourth Saturday in September it will remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. The requested deviation is to accommodate the 2011 Wrightsville Beach/Quintiles Marathon scheduled for Sunday, March 20, 2011. To facilitate this event, the draw of the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. until 8 a.m.

The bridge is a lift drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 20 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position. Vessels that can pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the bridge closure so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. There are no alternate routes available to the vessel. Most of the vessel traffic consists of recreational vessels with a few barges and tugs in the daytime. There is an average of one bridge opening a year for the time covered by the deviation in the past three years. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

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

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requests a temporary deviation from the published regulation for the Milton (LA 92) bridge (4 feet vertical clearance when closed at mean High water) across the Vermillion River as required by 33 CFR 117.5: Except as otherwise authorized or required by this part, drawbridges must open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given in accordance with this subpart. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.509(b)(4), the draw of the Milton (LA 92) bridge shall open on signal; except that from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requests a deviation to allow the bridge to remain closed to marine traffic from 12:01 a.m. on January 10, 2011 through 11:59 p.m. on February 18, 2011. This time period has been coordinated through the waterway users and the responsible Coast Guard Units. There is no alternative route around the project.

This deviation will allow the rehabilitation of the bridge to be completed in a timely fashion. This rehab is necessary to extend the bridge life and optimize traffic and boat operations. It will also improve overall traffic, boat and pedestrian safety.

The deviation dates and schedule were chosen to minimize significant effect on vessel traffic. Any vessel that does not require an opening of the drawspan may pass at any time; the vertical clearance is four feet mean high water when closed.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. This deviation may be terminated/cancelled at anytime via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The contract for the current CDC barge reporting system at the Inland River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC) was extended to January 2011. In late December 2010 it was determined that the IRVMC reporting requirements would be suspended for a two-year period beginning at midnight January 15, 2011. As of January 16, 2011, the Coast Guard will have no way to receive and process reports. The short time span between late December and January 15 makes it impracticable to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) about suspension of the reporting requirements of 33 CFR 165.830 or to take public comments on the same. We believe prior notice and comment is unnecessary because we expect the affected public will have no objection to the temporary suspension of regulatory requirements. Prior notice and comment is also contrary to the public interest because there is no public purpose served by continuing to require reports when there is no mechanism for receiving or processing those reports.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a substantive rule that relieves a restriction may be made effective less than 30 days after publication. This temporary final rule, suspending the reporting requirements and thereby relieving the regulatory restriction on towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers provided by 33 CFR 165.830, takes effect at midnight on January 15, 2011, less than 30 days after publication.

The legal basis for this rulemaking is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas, under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. A RNA is a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established, to control vessel traffic in a place determined to have hazardous conditions. 33 CFR 165.10; Commandant Instruction Manual M16704.3A, 1-6.

The purpose of this temporary final rule is to suspend the reporting requirements for CDC barges imposed by the RNA created in 33 CFR 165.830. This temporary rule relieves the towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from the reporting requirements for a two-year period.

During the suspension of reporting requirements, towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges will be relieved of their obligation to report their CDCs under 33 CFR 165.830(d), (f), (g), and (h). This suspension in no way relieves towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement reporting obligations currently in effect under other regulations or placed into effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule is temporary and limited in nature by suspending CDC barge reporting requirements during a two-year period, creating no undue delay to vessel traffic in the regulated area.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some which may be small entities: owners or operators of CDC barges intending to transit the Inland Rivers in the Eighth Coast Guard District during this two-year period. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on those entities or a substantial number of any small entities for the following reason. This rule suspends reporting requirements for two years.

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

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

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 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 effect 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.

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

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

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

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

This temporary rule suspends the reporting requirements established for CDC barges transiting the inland rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2010-1136), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ) or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2010-1136” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2010-1136” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives since immediate action is necessary to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated with ice on navigable waters. Such hazards include vessels becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding, and creating hazards to navigation.

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 the Federal Register . Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment. Therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels from becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding, and creating hazards to navigation.

During a moderate or severe winter, frozen waterways present numerous hazards to vessels. Ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's ability to maneuver, and could cause visual aids to navigation to be submerged, destroyed or moved off station. Ice abrasions and ice pressure could also compromise a vessel's watertight integrity, and non-steel hulled vessels would be exposed to a greater risk of hull breach.

When ice conditions develop to a point where vessel operations become unsafe, it becomes necessary to impose operating restrictions to ensure the safe navigation of vessels. A safety zone is a tool available to the Captain of the Port (COTP) to restrict and manage vessel movement when hazardous conditions exist. The COTP Baltimore is establishing a safety zone within all navigable waters of the COTP Baltimore zone. This safety zone will restrict certain vessels meeting certain conditions specified from entering the navigable waters included within the COTP Baltimore zone. Those vessels prohibited from entering the safety zone will be specified via broadcast notice to mariners and marine safety information bulletins.

Ice generally begins to form in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the C & D Canal, in late December or early January. During a moderate or severe winter, ice in navigable waters can become a serious problem, requiring the use of Federal, State and private ice breaking resources. The Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore will use his COTP authority to promote vessel safety in ice-congested waters and the continuation of waterborne commerce throughout the cold weather months.

Ice fields in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries move with prevailing winds and currents. Heavy ice buildups can occur in the C & D Canal, from Town Point Wharf to Reedy Point. Other areas that are commonly affected by high volumes of ice are: The Elk River, Susquehanna River, Patapsco River, Nanticoke River, Wicomico River, Tangier Sound, Pocomoke River and Sound, and the Potomac River. Once ice buildup begins it can affect the transit of large ocean-going vessels. This regulation is intended to mitigate the threat ice in the COTP Baltimore zone poses to the maritime public.

A safety zone is being established encompassing the COTP Baltimore Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-15. The Captain of the Port Baltimore anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the regulated area at certain times. The purpose of this regulation is to promote maritime safety and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards due to ice conditions that become a threat to navigation. The COTP will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the location and thickness of the ice as well as the ability of vessels to transit through the safety zone depending on the prevailing ice conditions. Prevailing ice conditions will be categorized as Condition One, Condition Two, or Condition Three.

Ice Condition One is an emergency condition in which ice has largely covered the regulated area. Under these conditions, convoys may be required and restrictions based on shaft horsepower and a vessel's planned transit may be imposed by the COTP on certain vessels seeking to enter the safety zone.

Ice Condition Two is an alert condition in which at least 2 inches of ice begins to form in the regulated area. The COTP Baltimore may impose restrictions, including but not limited to, those based on shaft horsepower and hull type restrictions for certain vessels seeking to enter the safety zone.

Ice Condition Three is a readiness condition in which weather conditions are favorable for the formation of ice in the regulated area. Daily reports for the Coast Guard Stations and commercial vessels are monitored, and no limitations for vessels seeking to enter the zone based on vessel traffic, hull type or shaft horsepower are anticipated.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation could hinder or prevent traffic from transiting the COTP Baltimore Zone, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule 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 operate, transit or anchor in the regulated area, from December 22, 2010 until April 15, 2010. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to a lack of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire COTP Baltimore Zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the regulated area at certain times. Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the COTP Baltimore. Also, the COTP Baltimore will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the location and thickness of the ice, as well as the ability of vessels to transit through the safety zone.

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

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

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

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

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

This rule will not 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.

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

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

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

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

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

The final rule with comment period entitled “Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011” appeared in the November 29, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 73170). The November 29, 2010 final rule with comment period included the agency's responses to comments made by the public in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 13, 2010. In that NPRM, CMS sought to define the new annual wellness visit providing personalized prevention plan services as provided by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act or the Act). CMS proposed that the specified elements of the “first annual wellness visit” and the “subsequent annual wellness visit” be only those identified in the Act. In response, a number of commenters urged CMS to include voluntary advance care planning as an additional specified element of the annual wellness visit in the final rule. As described more fully below, we are rescinding this part of the final rule.

In the July 13, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 40039), we published the proposed rule entitled “Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011.” In response to this publication, we received comments from health care providers, and others urging us to add voluntary advance care planning as a specified element of the definitions of both the “first annual wellness visit” and the “subsequent annual wellness visit.” The commenters stated that their recommendations were based upon a number of recent research studies, and the inclusion by the Medicare initial preventive physical examination (IPPE) provisions of a similar element in the existing IPPE benefit.

CMS agreed with the commenters that voluntary advance care planning should be added as a specified element in the definitions of both the “first annual wellness visit” and the “subsequent annual wellness visit” based on the evidence provided and the inclusion of a similar element in the IPPE benefit (also referred to as the Welcome to Medicare exam) since January 1, 2009, and incorporated it into the final rule.

It has since become apparent that we did not have an opportunity to consider prior to the issuance of the final rule the wide range of views on this subject held by a broad range of stakeholders (including members of Congress and those who were involved with this provision during the debate on the Affordable Care Act). Therefore, we are rescinding the provision of the final rule that includes voluntary advance care planning as a specified element of the annual wellness visits providing personalized prevention plan services, and returning to the policy that was proposed, which was limited to the elements specified in the Act. We are revising our regulation at § 410.15(a) to remove voluntary advance care planning as a specified element from the definitions of “first annual wellness visit providing personalized prevention plan services” and “subsequent annual wellness visit providing personalized prevention plan services” and to remove the definition of “voluntary advance care planning.”

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and invite public comment on the proposed rule before the provisions of the rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). The Physician Fee Schedule notice of proposed rulemaking includes a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and the terms and substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. This notice and comment procedure can be waived, however, if an agency finds good cause that the procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and its reasons for it in the rule. Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of final rules after the date of their publication. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

As noted earlier, a number of commenters suggested in response to the NPRM that we should include voluntary advance care planning as an additional specified element of the new annual wellness visit. While we believe that we acted within our authority in including voluntary advance care planning as an additional specified element of the new annual wellness visit in the final rule, it has become apparent that we did not have an opportunity to consider prior to the issuance of the final rule the wide range of views on this subject held by a broad range of stakeholders (including members of Congress and those who were involved with this provision during the debate on the Affordable Care Act). Because we believe it is in the public interest to specify contemporaneous with the January 1, 2011 effective date the scope of the new “annual wellness visit for personalized prevention plan services” benefit, we believe it would be contrary to the public interest to provide for a 30-day delay in effective date. Therefore, we find good cause, based on the public interest, both to waive the notice of proposed rulemaking and the 30-day delay in effective date, and to issue this amendment effective January 1, 2011.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

We have examined the impact of this amendment as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This amendment does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $7.0 million to $34.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 for final rules of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this amendment will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2010, that threshold is approximately $135 million. This amendment will have no consequential effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Because this amendment does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this amendment was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 410 as set forth below:

Federal odometer law, which is largely based on the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act)  1 and the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986  2 , as amended (TIMA), contains a number of provisions to limit odometer fraud and assure that the purchaser of a motor vehicle knows the true mileage of the vehicle. The Cost Savings Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations requiring the transferor (seller) of a motor vehicle to provide a written statement of the vehicle's mileage registered on the odometer to the transferee (buyer) in connection with the transfer of ownership. This written statement is generally referred to as the odometer disclosure statement. Further, under TIMA, vehicle titles themselves must have a space for the odometer disclosure statement, and States are prohibited from licensing vehicles unless a valid odometer disclosure statement on the title is signed and dated by the transferor. Titles must also be printed by a secure printing process or other secure process. TIMA also contains specific disclosure provisions on transfers of leased vehicles. Federal law also contains document retention requirements for motor vehicle dealers and lessors.

TIMA's motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements apply in a State unless the State has alternative requirements approved by the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated administration of the odometer program to NHTSA. A State may petition NHTSA for approval of such alternate odometer disclosure requirements.

The State of Wisconsin has petitioned NHTSA for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements under TIMA. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) proposes a paperless electronic title transfer scheme, described more fully in section IV, similar to the Commonwealth of Virginia's alternate odometer disclosure program, approved by NHTSA on January 2, 2009. 74 FR 643, 650 (January 7, 2009). Wisconsin's program will not apply to, or in lieu, of the provisions of Federal odometer law related to, transactions involving at least one out-of-State party. 3

With limited exceptions, NHTSA initially determined that Wisconsin's proposal satisfied Federal odometer law, and proposed granting Wisconsin's petition on the condition that it amend its program or demonstrate that it meets the requirements of Federal law. See 75 FR 20965 (April 22, 2010). To gain final approval, Wisconsin was required to demonstrate that its program conforms to Federal odometer law disclosure requirements specifying that an odometer disclosure statement, including the brand, be made at the time of transfer when the seller is unavailable. 4 NHTSA's Initial Determination also asked Wisconsin to address aspects of its e-Odometer program relating to transfer of leased vehicles. As addressed below, Wisconsin will submit a separate petition regarding transfer of leased vehicles. After careful consideration of comments, and the entire record, NHTSA is granting Wisconsin's petition for title transfers other than those involving a lease agreement. NHTSA's analysis is set forth below in Section VI.

NHTSA reviewed the statutory background of Federal odometer law in its consideration and approval of Virginia's petition for alternate odometer disclosure requirements. See 73 FR 35617 (June 24, 2008) and 74 FR 643 (January 7, 2009). The statutory background of the Cost Savings Act and TIMA, and the purposes behind TIMA, are discussed at length in NHTSA's Final Determination granting Virginia's petition. 74 FR 643, 647-48. A brief summary of the statutory background of Federal odometer law and the purposes of TIMA follows.

In 1972, Congress enacted the Cost Savings Act, among other things, to prohibit tampering of odometers on motor vehicles and to establish certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers. See Public Law 92-513, section 401, 86 Stat. 947, 961-63 (1972). The Cost Savings Act required that, under regulations to be published by the Secretary, the transferor of a motor vehicle provide a written vehicle mileage disclosure to the transferee, prohibited odometer tampering and provided for enforcement. See Id. at section 408, 86 Stat. at 947. Section 408 states that the Secretary shall prescribe rules requiring any transferor of a motor vehicle to provide a written disclosure to the transferee that includes the cumulative mileage on the odometer and if the odometer reading is known to be different than the miles the vehicle has actually traveled, a statement that the actual mileage is unknown. In general, the purpose for the disclosure was to assist purchasers to know the true mileage of a motor vehicle.

A major shortcoming of the odometer provisions of the Cost Savings Act was that they did not require that the odometer disclosure statement be on the title. In a number of States, they were on separate documents that could be altered easily or discarded and did not travel with the title. See 74 FR 644. Consequently, the disclosure statements did not necessarily deter odometer fraud employing altered documents, discarded titles, and title washing. Id.

Congress enacted TIMA in 1986 to address the Cost Savings Act's shortcomings. It amended the Cost Savings Act to prohibit States from licensing vehicles after transfers of ownership unless the new owner (transferee) submitted a title from the seller (transferor) containing the seller's signed and dated statement of the vehicle's mileage, as previously required by the Cost Savings Act. See Public Law 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309 (1986); 74 FR 644 (Jan. 7, 2009). TIMA also prohibits the licensing of vehicles for use in any State unless the title issued to the transferee is printed using a secure printing process or other secure process, indicates the vehicle mileage at the time of transfer, and contains additional space for a subsequent mileage disclosure by the transferee when it is sold again. Id. Other provisions created similar safeguards for leased vehicles.

TIMA added a provision to the Cost Savings Act that, with the approval of the Secretary of Transportation, allows States to have alternate requirements to those required under TIMA respecting the disclosure of mileage. It amended Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act to add a new subsection (f), which provided that the requirements of subsections (d) and (e)(1) respecting the disclosure of motor vehicle mileage when motor vehicles are transferred or leased shall apply in a State unless the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements approved by the Secretary. Subsection (f) provided further that the Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may be.

In 1988, Congress amended section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act to permit the use of a secure power of attorney in circumstances where the title was held by a lienholder. The Secretary was required to publish a rule to implement the provision. See Public Law 100-561 section 40, 102 Stat. 2805, 2817 (1988), which added Section 408(d)(2)(C). In 1990, Congress amended section 408(d)(2)(C) of the Cost Savings Act. The amendment addressed retention of powers of attorneys by States and provided that the rule adopted by the Secretary not require that a vehicle be titled in the State in which the power of attorney was issued. See Public Law 101-641 section 7(a), 104 Stat. 4654, 4657 (1990).

In 1994, in the course of the recodification of various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act, as amended, was repealed, reenacted, and recodified without substantive change. See Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, 1048-1056, 1379, 1387 (1994). The odometer statute is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32701 et seq. In particular, Section 408(a) of the Cost Savings Act was recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(a). Sections 408(d) and (e), which were added by TIMA (and later amended), were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c). The provisions pertaining to approval of State alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(d).

As discussed above, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in 1986, states that NHTSA “shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the [NHTSA] determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be.” (Subsections 408(d), (e) of the Cost Savings Act were recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c)). In light of this provision, we now turn to our interpretation of the purposes of these subsections as germane to Wisconsin's petition.

Our Final Determination granting Virginia's petition for alternate odometer disclosure requirements identified the purposes of TIMA germane to petitions for approval of odometer disclosure requirements that did not include disclosures involving leased vehicles or disclosures by power of attorney. 5 74 FR 643, 647-48 (January 7, 2009). A brief summary of the purposes identified in the Virginia Final Determination follows. In the Initial Determination of Wisconsin's petition, the Agency identified the purposes of TIMA relevant to odometer disclosures for transfer of leased vehicles. 75 FR 20972-73. Since, as explained below, Wisconsin has indicated that it will submit a separate petition regarding transfer of leased vehicles, the purposes of TIMA relevant to leased vehicles are not discussed here.

One purpose of TIMA is to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. 74 FR 647. To prevent odometer fraud facilitated by disclosure statements that were separate from titles, TIMA required mileage disclosures to be on a secure vehicle title instead of a separate document. These titles also had to contain space for the seller's attested mileage disclosure and a new disclosure by the purchaser when the vehicle was sold again. This discouraged mileage alterations on titles and limited opportunities for obtaining new titles with lower mileage than the actual mileage. Id.

A second purpose of TIMA is to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making odometer mileage disclosures on the title a condition of any application for a title and a requirement for any title issued by a State. 74 FR 647. This provision was intended to eliminate or significantly reduce abuses associated with lack of control of the titling process. Id.

Third, TIMA sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. 74 FR 648. In furtherance of these purposes, paper titles (incorporating the disclosure statement) must be produced using a secure printing process or protected by “other secure process.”  6 Id.

A fourth purpose is to create a record of vehicle mileage and a paper trail. 74 FR 648. The underlying purposes of this record and paper trail were to better inform consumers and provide mechanisms for tracing odometer tampering and prosecuting violators. TIMA's requirement that new applications for titles include signed mileage disclosure statements on the titles from the prior owners creates a permanent record that is easily checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement officials. This record provides critical snapshots of vehicle mileage at every transfer, which are the fundamental links of this paper trail.

Finally, the general purpose of TIMA is to protect consumers by assuring that they receive valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. 74 FR 648.

As explained in NHTSA's Initial Determination, Wisconsin petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements. 75 FR 20965, 20967 (Apr. 22, 2010). Wisconsin requests alternate disclosure requirements for motor vehicle private party (including motor vehicle dealers) transfers, including transactions involving a lienholder. 7 Wisconsin's petition included a request for alternate odometer disclosure requirements for transactions involving leased vehicles but, as explained below, Wisconsin states that it will submit a separate petition addressing electronic odometer disclosure for leased vehicle transfers.

Recent Wisconsin legislation establishes that the title, title application, and other specified information maintained by the DMV in its database are the original and controlling title records for a vehicle. See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 342.01(2)(ac) and § 342.09(4) (2009). Wisconsin proposes creating an electronic odometer statement (e-Odometer) residing in the WisDOT Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database as the official odometer statement. Under the proposal, a distinct e-Odometer system will be created to accept and maintain e-Odometer statements as stand-alone electronic records, separate from an electronic title. E-Odometer statements will be linked to, and become part of the title record in the DMV database. The DMV's titling system will automatically link the e-Odometer statements to a vehicle's title whenever an electronic title transaction occurs, and a title transfer could not be completed unless proper odometer disclosure is entered in the e-Odometer record. According to Wisconsin's petition, if a paper title is needed, the DMV will print it on secure paper with the odometer disclosure statement in the proper location and format.

Wisconsin's original petition encompassed transfers of leased vehicles. In the Initial Determination, NHTSA raised questions about this aspect of Wisconsin's program. In its comments on that Determination, Wisconsin stated that lessee odometer disclosure would be addressed in the second implementation phase, and that the State would consult with NHTSA. Wisconsin asked that NHTSA approve its petition with the understanding that Wisconsin would consult with NHTSA to satisfy all requirements. If NHTSA is unable to approve the State's petition with that provision, the State requested approval of the petition except for the lessor/lessee transaction process. The State would expect to file a separate petition for approval of the lessor/lessee transaction in the future. NHTSA cannot approve a petition or part of a petition on the basis of future consultations. As a result, NHTSA is unable to grant Wisconsin's petition as it pertains to transfers of vehicles involving a lease agreement. This is without prejudice for Wisconsin to develop e-Odometer provisions for the transfer of leased vehicles in a future phase of its implementation plan and to petition NHTSA for approval of electronic leased vehicle odometer disclosure in the future. We will not discuss Wisconsin's proposal for leased vehicles below.

Wisconsin has implemented a titling system that permits individuals, organizations and businesses (collectively, DMV Customers) to process vehicle title transactions electronically through its automated processing partnership system (APPS) program. See Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 1565.01. Under APPS, a vendor  8 approved by the DMV  9 creates a computer system to link or interface DMV customers with the DMV database. The link permits the DMV customer to access the DMV database and conduct authorized title transactions.

In order to gain direct access to the DMV's database under the vendor system, a DMV customer must enter into an agreement with an approved vendor, obtain DMV approval to process title transactions, and enter into a contract with the DMV. To maintain system security and integrity, employees of DMV customers using the interface will have to submit a signed affidavit to the DMV before accessing the system. Once the DMV customer complies with these requirements, the DMV customer will be able to perform authorized title transactions directly within the DMV's system.

Currently, Wisconsin requires motor vehicle dealers to electronically process title transactions for vehicles that they sell. See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 342.16(1)(a) and (am) (2009); Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 141.01. Motor vehicle dealers can perform electronic titling transactions through APPS or through an Internet-based interface with the DMV, known as e-MV11. In order to process title transactions using the e-MV11, a DMV customer must apply to the DMV by submitting an application setting forth the name, address and contact of the entity and providing the names and access authority of employees performing title transactions. After setting up the required security protocols, the DMV customer can enter the appropriate title transaction. 10 Also, under Wisconsin's electronic titling program, motor vehicle dealers are required to maintain and keep their title transactions records, including odometer disclosure statements, for five years. See Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 141.08(2).

According to Wisconsin's petition, the electronic titling program will be expanded to include other persons, businesses, and organizations. These businesses and organizations, such as lienholders or auction companies, will conduct electronic title transactions through APPS. Individuals conducting private sales of unencumbered vehicles will eventually have the ability to perform title transfer and odometer disclosure through an Internet-based application called e-MVPublic.

Wisconsin asserts that e-Odometer entries will provide a virtual replacement of existing secure paper odometer disclosure statements for vehicle transactions. Under Wisconsin's proposal, the e-Odometer system will be a unique electronic application within Wisconsin's electronic title transfer system. Although the e-Odometer entry will be a stand-alone secure electronic record, it will be safely and securely electronically linked to the electronic title record of the vehicle by the vehicle identification number (VIN) and become part of the vehicle title. Title transfer could not occur unless the transferor and transferee, or other authorized persons such as dealer employees, perform the required disclosure and acceptance through the e-Odometer system. Once the odometer disclosure and acceptance is completed, the statement is stored in the e-Odometer system and linked to the electronic title record by the VIN.

The petition states that the following information will be stored in the secure e-Odometer record:

1. VIN;

2. Description of the vehicle by make, model, model year and body type;

3. Odometer reading and date of the reading;

4. The Brand (actual, not actual or exceeds limits of odometer);

5. Name, address of person disclosing odometer reading (must match the transferor);

6. Name, address of person accepting odometer reading (must match the transferee); and

7. Statement reference to Federal law requirement and potential penalties.

Some of the e-Odometer information and other vehicle information will be available to DMV personnel through a DMV vehicle inquiry function, while limited information will be available to the public through a public inquiry function. The information available to DMV personnel includes:

1. Vehicle description;

2. Title owner information;

3. Brands, if any;

4. Most current odometer reading, status and date recorded;

5. Odometer reading, status and record date history;

6. Lien information; and

7. Owner in possession of the vehicle.

The publicly available information includes:

1. Vehicle description;

2. Most current odometer reading, status and date recorded;

3. Brands, if any; and

4. Lien information.

Wisconsin's petition states that creation of or amendments to e-Odometer records will be possible only when titles are transferred in the course of authorized transactions by authorized persons.

Wisconsin plans to implement its e-Odometer program in three phases. Because motor vehicle dealers are already required to complete title transactions electronically, Wisconsin intends to begin the e-Odometer program with these dealers. See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 342.16(1)(a) and (am) (2009); Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 141.01. The second phase will implement e-Odometer in title transfers involving lienholders, motor vehicle auctions, and vehicle repossessions. The final phase will implement e-Odometer in transfers of unencumbered motor vehicles between private individuals. Phase two and three are still under development and Wisconsin has not provided an estimated implementation schedule. According to the petition, during phase-in, some odometer disclosure transactions will be electronic but some will continue to be on the secure paper title and secure paper odometer statement.

Wisconsin's petition states e-Odometer will apply first to motor vehicle transfers through motor vehicle dealers. During this phase, eligible title transactions include reassignments among dealers, consignments, and retail sales. In order to complete a transaction, there must be an odometer disclosure and acceptance of the odometer statement. The odometer disclosure and acceptance will be permitted between the following persons: (1) Authorized dealer personnel and an individual buyer; (2) an individual seller trading in a vehicle and authorized dealer personnel; (3) authorized dealer personnel in the case of dealer reassignments; and (4) an individual vehicle owner and an authorized person on behalf of a consignee in the case of vehicle consignment. According to Wisconsin, the identities of all persons involved will be verified and authenticated through the DMV's processes.

Under Wisconsin's plan, dealer title transfer transactions will be completed through an APPS's vendor interface application or the e-MV11 Internet-based application. During these title transfer transactions, e-Odometer forms will be imported into the transaction and completed by the authorized persons.

Wisconsin's petition states that the second phase will incorporate e-Odometer procedures into title transfers in a number of circumstances, including between private parties when there is a lien on the vehicle. These title transactions will be processed by the financial institution holding the lien. During this phase, e-Odometer will be available to the financial institution through the APPS application or an application WisDOT develops for these lenders. Because lienholders do not possess titles under Wisconsin law, a satisfied lienholder will access e-Odometer to electronically release the lien to allow production of a clear title. To facilitate this process, e-Odometer forms will be available to buyers and sellers through an Internet application allowing completion of the required odometer disclosures and acceptances.

During this second phase, Wisconsin also plans to incorporate use of the e-Odometer system into title transfers involving motor vehicle auctions, involuntary vehicle transfers ( i.e. involuntary liens and repossessions), corrections to odometer information on titles, and other transactions involving secure odometer statements.

The last phase of Wisconsin's program will incorporate e-Odometer entries into private sales of unencumbered vehicles. The title transfer will be conducted through an on-line application called e-MVPublic. 11 For private transfers of motor vehicles, odometer disclosure and acceptance will be accomplished by the seller and buyer through e-MVPublic once their identities are verified by DMV processes.

Wisconsin's petition describes two verification processes whose operation differs depending on whether the user is a DMV partner or regular customer (such as a dealer or financial institution) or an intermittent user. For a DMV partner or regular customer, the first step is being approved by the DMV to access its database. As part of the approval process, the entity must provide the legal business name and address of the business. After approval, identity verification procedures will require these users to enter into an agreement with the DMV that includes security procedures—including establishing an account and secure logon ID. The users are identified and authenticated through a unique “user ID” and password that are traced to a particular person on the account.

Vendors will manage the verification process. The Wisconsin APPS program requires approved vendors to design precise electronic security and audit trail procedures into its interface, which DMV will then verify. This interface requires three administrative steps to identify, authenticate, and authorize users of the DMV's database. First, vendors must create an audit journal to identify the individual responsible for each transaction. Vendors assign each user a “user ID” that can be traced to the individual user. Next, to authenticate the user, a password known only to the user that is associated with the “user ID” is entered before a transaction is allowed. If an individual user is not authorized by the vendor for the type of transaction requested, the system will immediately terminate the transaction. Last, vendors must authorize the user to access the appropriate information. In addition to the identification protocols, vendors must create and maintain access logs that can be used for auditing and recording keeping, which include, among other things, a history of each customer transaction.

Under Wisconsin's plan, DMV partners and regular customers must submit the identity of each employee who will conduct title transactions and specify each employee's authority to perform transactions in the DMV's database. Prior to obtaining authorization from the DMV to conduct title transfer transactions, each employee must submit a signed affidavit acknowledging security procedures and safeguards. The DMV must confirm each user's authorization before the user can process title transactions.

For individuals who are not DMV partners or regular customers, Wisconsin will require individuals to establish an electronic signature that can uniquely identify the person. Identity verification begins with the customer entering a minimum of three personal identifiers for the correct customer record in the DMV database. Personal identifiers include name, address, date of birth, product number, Driver License/ID number, and a Federal Employer Identification Number or partial Social Security Number (possibly the last four or five digits). 12 After the user inputs the personal identifiers into the system, the system will check DMV customer records and verify that the user is the correct individual or business, and will authorize the customer to update the odometer statement. Once the user is verified, the user can begin the title transaction.

Wisconsin's petition states that two parties must engage in an authorized e-Odometer transaction to effectuate the odometer disclosure. In order to conduct the e-Odometer disclosure, each party will access the DMV database by providing information to satisfy the identity verification requirements of the system and the VIN of the vehicle. Under Wisconsin's proposal, a transferor must disclose the odometer reading and brand (actual/not actual/exceeding odometer limits) and the transferee must accept the odometer reading to allow the transaction to go forward. 13 The e-Odometer transaction will remain in a pending status between the transferor and transferee until each party completes the required actions, e.g., disclosure by the seller and acceptance by the buyer. Once both actions have been accomplished, the e-Odometer record will be secured within DMV's database and become part of the electronic title through the VIN.

To clarify the e-Odometer procedure, Wisconsin provides an exemplar title transaction involving a dealer trade-in. In a vehicle trade-in transaction, the customer (transferor) must bring the paper title to the dealer (transferee) at the time of the transfer. After entering all the required data in the Wisconsin electronic title system and initiating the e-Odometer process, the dealer will then destroy the paper title. 14 Under thee-Odometer process, the customer discloses the odometer reading (and brand) and the dealer accepts the odometer reading. The vehicle's odometer reading is then stored in the DMV database and linked virtually to the vehicle's title through the VIN. Upon later sale of the trade-in vehicle, the dealer (as the transferor) must disclose the odometer reading (and brand) and the vehicle buyer (as the transferee) must accept the odometer reading. The dealer and buyer will access e-Odometer at the time of the sale to complete the disclosure and acceptance of the odometer statement, which upon acceptance by the buyer secures the odometer statement in the DMV's database. After the sale of the vehicle is completed, the dealer completes title processing in APPS ore-MV11 by titling the vehicle in the consumer's name, verifying that secure odometer disclosure has been completed. After titling is complete, the updated e-Odometer entry becomes part of the title record. For in-State transactions, a paper title is issued only upon request.

Wisconsin has maintained that its e-Odometer program meets the purposes of TIMA, as described by NHTSA in its Final Determination on the Commonwealth of Virginia's petition for alternate odometer disclosure requirements. See 74 FR 643, 647-48 (January 7, 2009).

Wisconsin's petition states that e-Odometer is part of the vehicle's title. Under e-Odometer, the VIN links the odometer statement to the title record. The system automatically importse-Odometer into the title transfer transaction process conducted by the transferor and transferee. A title transaction cannot occur unless the odometer disclosure statement is made and accepted. The e-Odometer information is then secured, stored, and becomes visible through the vehicle's electronic title record.

According to the petition, other system requirements provide a significant level of security for the e-Odometer system. First, title transfer cannot occur unless the authorized persons update e-Odometer entries. Second, only those persons authorized to make title transfer transactions ( e.g., authorized dealer personnel or authenticated private owners) are able to make e-Odometer statements. Third, odometer disclosure under thee-Odometer system is only permitted when a title is transferred. 15 If a title is required to be printed on a secure title paper, the DMV system will automatically include the odometer disclosure information on the printed title. If a title on secure title paper is used in a vehicle transfer, the odometer information shown on the secure paper title will be entered into the e-Odometer electronic record during the title transfer transaction process and the paper title will be destroyed.

Wisconsin's petition also states that odometer disclosure is a required data input for application for a title and a required output on the title. According to the petition, the odometer disclosure and acceptance is a required input to an electronic title transaction, whether performed through APPS or e-MV11. Although APPS permits odometer disclosure and acceptance at different times, e-Odometer secures the disclosure and acceptance and stores it electronically until the odometer disclosure is imported during title processing.

Wisconsin's petition asserts that e-Odometer provides a level of security against altering, tampering, and counterfeiting equivalent to the odometer statement on a secure paper title. According to Wisconsin, the e-Odometer statement is secured in the DMV database as soon as the transferor electronically discloses and the transferee accepts the odometer reading. After the transferee accepts the odometer disclosure, e-Odometer stores that mileage disclosure, the date, and the names and addresses of the transferor and transferee, and will not allow any changes to that entry.

Finally, Wisconsin's petition contends that the authentication and verification of the transferor's and transferee's electronic signatures are readily detectable and reliably traced to the particular individual. Wisconsin states that the DMV has established extensive security procedures for vendors who process vehicle transactions on behalf of the DMV and regularly interact with the DMV, and for individuals and intermittent business customers who wish to make entries in DMV records. Wisconsin's security procedures are governed under Wisconsin statutes, administrative rules, contracts, DMV policy and procedure, and electronic security protocols. DMV Partners and regular business customers will access the e-Odometer system through secure applications that are already in use for vehicle title transactions. Individuals and intermittent business customers will access the e-Odometer system through a secure Internet application. Both applications require information, such as electronic signatures, that can authenticate and verify the users' identity.

NHTSA received comments from two entities: (1) WisDOT; and (2) the American Automotive Leasing Association (AALA). The AALA comments are discussed in section VI below.

WisDOT's comments responded to NHTSA requirements in the Agency's Initial Determination that Wisconsin (1) conform its program to the requirements of Federal odometer law by not permitting the alteration of the brand on an electronic odometer statement when the seller of the vehicle is unavailable at the time of the transfer, or fully explains how this exception complies with the law and its purposes; (2) permit lessors to retain each odometer disclosure statement they give and receive; and (3) clarify the system's ability to allow lessors to place a different brand on the disclosure statement in those instances where the lessor believes, or has reason to believe, that the statement provided by the lessee is inaccurate. WisDOT submitted comments indicating that it will manage e-odometer disclosure when a seller is unavailable by requiring the buyer to give the odometer reading with a brand of “not actual,” and specifying that the “not actual” brand cannot be changed, even if the seller appears later.

While Wisconsin will seek approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements for leased vehicle transfers at a later date, its comments addressed NHTSA's concerns about these transfers. Wisconsin indicated that it will create a mandatory system for lessors to retain all odometer statements they receive for the five-year period required by Federal regulations, 49 CFR 580.8(b). Wisconsin also indicated that it will build e-Odometer to facilitate odometer statements by lessors if the lessor believes, or has reason to believe, that the lessee's disclosure does not reflect the actual mileage of the vehicle.

In this part, NHTSA considers the Wisconsin program in light of the purposes of the disclosure required by subsection (d) of section 408 of the Cost Savings Act. 16 We also respond to comments.

Under the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, the standard is that NHTSA “shall” approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless NHTSA determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be. The purposes are discussed above, as is the Wisconsin alternate program.

As explained above, one purpose of the disclosures under section 408(d) and (e) of the Cost Savings Act is to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. NHTSA has determined that Wisconsin's alternate electronic odometer disclosure requirements satisfy this purpose. Under Wisconsin's program, the vehicle's odometer reading must be entered in the course of the title transfer transaction for transfer of title to occur. The reading is disclosed by the transferor and, if valid, accepted by the transferee. Thereafter the odometer disclosure statement will reside as an electronic record in the DMV database and will be linked to the vehicle's title by the VIN. This electronic odometer disclosure is a required element of the transfer and part of the title record in the DMV database. If a hard copy of the title is needed, Wisconsin generates a title with the odometer disclosure statement on the title using a secure printing process. Wisconsin's system will, therefore, have the odometer disclosure as part of the vehicle title as required by TIMA. Also, Wisconsin's electronic title and odometer system provides an electronic equivalent to TIMA's requirement that the title contain a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage. For conventional paper transactions in Wisconsin, hard copies of electronic titles will continue to provide a separate space for owners to execute a proper odometer disclosure in keeping with TIMA and current practice. 17

Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer mileage on the title a condition for the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. NHTSA has determined that Wisconsin's title transfer process satisfies this purpose by requiring disclosure and acceptance of odometer information before the transaction can be completed. If the transaction is successful, the DMV's system will create or amend an electronic title and store the linked electronic odometer statement. A new title will not be issued without entry and acceptance of the odometer disclosure. Our Initial Determination raised a question about alteration of the brand. Wisconsin indicated in its petition that, if the seller is not available at the time of transfer of ownership, the DMV database permits the transferee to state the odometer reading with a brand of “not actual.” If the transferor later becomes available to make the disclosure and does so, DMV would change the recorded status to “actual.” In the Initial Determination, NHTSA stated that a change to the title subsequent to transfer of the vehicle does not conform to Federal odometer law, which requires an odometer disclosure statement, including the brand, to be made at the time of transfer. 75 FR 20965, 20971 (April 22, 2010) ( citing 49 U.S.C. 32705(a)(1); 49 CFR 580.5(a)). Wisconsin's comments to our Initial Determination indicate that Wisconsin's program will not permit a post-transfer change of the brand. Wisconsin allows the buyer to give the odometer reading a brand of “not actual” where not properly completed by the seller, and this brand cannot be changed, even if the seller appears later. The Agency notes that a transferor and/or transferee cannot incorporate a “not actual” brand to the odometer disclosure statement as a matter of course or convenience, but only if the mileage indicated on the odometer and on the odometer disclosure statement is inaccurate. 49 U.S.C. 32705(a)(3); 49 CFR 580.5(e)(3). 49 U.S.C. 32705(a)(3).

Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. The agency has determined that Wisconsin's electronic disclosure requirements are as secure as current paper titles. Wisconsin's electronic odometer statement is disclosed by the transferor and accepted by the transferee, and thereafter stored in a secure DMV database system. When the State maintains the e-Odometer database with appropriate levels of security, electronic recording of odometer readings and disclosures will be maintained in a way in which alteration is unlikely. The odometer reading, which will be linked to the electronic title record by the VIN, cannot be altered except when it is updated during the title transfer process by authorized users. On subsequent title transfers, the transferor and transferee will have to complete the odometer disclosure and acceptance for the transaction to be completed.

When fully implemented, all subsequent title transfers will be performed through the APPS or e-MV11, or other secure on-line process. Each time an on-line title transfer occurs, the DMV database system stores the electronic version of the odometer statement. The DMV will issue a paper title only when necessary, e.g., title transfer transactions that involve out-of-State parties. Since the title and odometer statement remain in electronic form under State care and custody, the likelihood of an individual altering, tampering or counterfeiting the title or odometer statement is significantly decreased. These electronic records will be maintained in a secure environment and any unauthorized access will be detected by the system. Moreover, under Wisconsin law, the electronic title record is the official and controlling title. If a conflict exists between the electronic title and a paper title, the paper title is void.

Another purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record trail are to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators prosecuted. In NHTSA's view, the proposed Wisconsin's electronic title transfer system will create a scheme of records, equivalent to the current “paper trail,” that assists law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting odometer fraud. Under the Wisconsin program, creation of a paper trail starts with the requirement for certain DMV customers to process title transactions through the APPS program. Under APPS, a DMV customer must sign a written agreement with the DMV that includes security procedures, an account, and a secure logon ID. DMV customers also must provide the DMV with the names of the individuals authorized to conduct transactions in APPS. These individuals are issued a secure logon ID and password that can be traced by the DMV to their transactions. In addition, APPS vendors must create security protocols that include an audit journal that can identify each person responsible for each title transaction. Vendors must also provide the DMV with a daily report detailing all security violations. Furthermore, Wisconsin requires motor vehicle dealers to retain copies of electronic titles for motor vehicles owned and offered for sale and odometer statements received and given for a period of 5 years. 18

For individuals not using APPS, the identity verification procedures require the establishment of electronic signatures of the parties. Due to the system's procedures for validating and authenticating the electronic signature of each individual through DMV's database, the electronic signatures of the transferor and transferee are reliable, readily detectable and can easily be linked to particular individuals. 19 Because the electronic signature consists of data elements such as the name, address, date of birth, product number, driver license or identification card number, and a Federal Employer Identification Number or the last four or five digits of the individual's Social Security number, Wisconsin's e-Odometer system can validate and authenticate individual electronic signatures. This authentication process also allows Wisconsin to trace the individuals involved in the transaction. This capacity maintains the purposes of creating a paper trail since the Wisconsin system will have a history of each vehicle's title transfer and odometer disclosure. These electronic records will create the electronic equivalent to a paper based system that will be readily available to law enforcement.

TIMA's overall purpose is to protect consumers by assuring that they receive valid odometer disclosures representing a vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer. Here, the alternate disclosure requirements of Wisconsin's program include characteristics that will assure that representations of a vehicle's actual mileage will be as valid as those found in current paper title transfers. Identity authentication, maintenance in a secure electronic environment, and transferee verification of the mileage data reported by the transferor all help to ensure valid disclosures. In addition, by providing rapid access to records of past transfers and by maintaining audit logs of each and every title transfer transaction, the Wisconsin program could potentially provide a superior deterrent to odometer fraud. Furthermore, Wisconsin's program offers the public the opportunity to view the most recent odometer reading and date of that reading through an Internet application. A prospective purchaser can access the public e-Odometer information to assess a vehicle's true value by comparing the vehicle's current odometer reading to the electronic record stored with the DMV.

As discussed above, NHTSA has not approved Wisconsin's plan insofar as it concerns leased vehicles. That program is under development. We recognize that while, in general, the AALA supported the Wisconsin petition, in its comments to the Initial Determination the AALA raised several concerns. The organization stated that Wisconsin's program should address interstate transactions. The AALA's comments also contended that requiring lessors to retain lessee odometer statements is unnecessary since these statements will be retained in Wisconsin's e-Odometer system. The AALA further contended that lessees should be allowed to fill out odometer statements electronically and that the Secretary should make clear that this practice is allowed. In the AALA's view, lessors should also be able to electronically submit their own odometer value when a lessee does not submit an odometer statement and the lessor is confident that it can provide a valid odometer reading. The AALA also requested that Wisconsin's system allow lessors to issue odometer statements that will be verified by purchasers to account for any miles accrued during the resale process. The organization added that lessors should be allowed to issue disclosure statements where multiple or amended statements are needed to ensure accurate reporting when leased vehicles are purchased by lessees or a lessee's employee but no third-party reseller is involved. Finally, the AALA stated that Wisconsin's proposal should state clearly that the lessee odometer disclosure statement may be provided by the driver. Since this notice does not resolve the leased vehicle part of Wisconsin's program, we are not addressing AALA's comments. If Wisconsin resubmits a petition regarding leased vehicles, the AALA will have an opportunity to comment on it.

For the foregoing reasons, and upon review of the entire record, NHTSA hereby issues a final determination granting Wisconsin's petition for requirements that apply in lieu of the Federal requirements adopted under section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act, other than the portions of the petition addressing transfer of leased vehicles, which Wisconsin indicates in its comments will be addressed in a separate petition. Other requirements of the Cost Savings Act continue to apply in Wisconsin. NHTSA reserves the right to rescind this determination in the event that future information indicates that the operation of Wisconsin's alternative disclosure system does not satisfy one or more applicable requirements.