The Department of Homeland Security published a document in the Federal Register of May 13, 2011, a final rule that amended its regulations to exempt portions of a Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Coast Guard system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Coast Guard -008 Courts Martial Case Files System of Records″ from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department amended Appendix C to 6 CFR part 5 to exempt portions of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Coast Guard—008 Courts Martial Case Files System of Records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. Inadvertently the paragraph designator “12” was used in the regulatory text instead of “54.” This document corrects that error.

Accordingly, 6 CFR part 5, appendix C is corrected as follows:

The Act, signed into law on July 21, 2010, 1 transfers all functions of the OTS and the Director as well as all of the powers, authorities, rights, and duties vested in the OTS and the Director of the OTS relating to the transferred functions to the OCC, FDIC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board). All functions, powers, authorities, rights, and duties relating to Federal savings associations are transferred to the OCC and the Comptroller of the Currency; all functions, powers, authorities, rights, and duties relating to State savings associations are transferred to the FDIC; and all functions, powers, authorities, rights, and duties relating to the supervision of savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) and any subsidiaries of such SLHCs other than depository institutions are transferred to the Board. The Act transfers rulemaking authority of the OTS and the Director of the OTS relating to savings associations to the OCC and the Comptroller of the Currency, and transfers rulemaking authority of the OTS and the Director of the OTS relating to SLHCs to the Board. 2 The transfer of OTS functions will take place on July 21, 2011. The Act abolishes the OTS 90 days after the transfer date.

Section 316(b) of the Act provides for the continuation of OTS regulations and enforcement of such regulations that have been issued in performance of the functions transferred by Title III of the Act. Section 316(c) of the Act requires the OCC and FDIC, after consultation with each other, to identify those regulations of the OTS that are continued under Section 316(b) of the Act that will be enforced by each agency and publish a list of those regulations in the Federal Register . 3 This list must be published no later than the transfer date.

This joint notice sets out both the OCC's and the FDIC's lists of OTS regulations that each agency will enforce beginning on the transfer date: The OCC, with respect to Federal savings associations; and the FDIC, with respect to State savings associations. 4 This joint notice is not intended to have any substantive effect on the regulations at issue; rather it provides a reference for Federal savings associations that will be regulated and supervised by the OCC beginning on the transfer date and for State savings associations that will be regulated and supervised by the FDIC beginning on the transfer date. 5 Separately, the OCC also plans to issue an interim final rule with a request for comment, effective on the transfer date, that republishes those OTS regulations the OCC will enforce as of the transfer date. These regulations will be added to Chapter I of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations and renumbered accordingly as OCC rules, with nomenclature and other technical amendments to reflect OCC supervision. The OCC will consider more comprehensive substantive amendments to former OTS regulations, as appropriate, with the opportunity for public comment, after the transfer date. 6

On June 14, 2011, the FDIC's Board of Directors approved an interim rule with request for comment to revise a number of existing FDIC administrative and procedural rules to reflect the FDIC's supervision of State savings associations and to make other clarifying amendments to those rules. 7 This interim rule, which was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2011, will be effective on the transfer date. The FDIC plans to issue a second interim rule with a request for comment, also effective on the transfer date, which will republish certain OTS rules for which the FDIC has rulemaking authority. These regulations will be renumbered and added to Chapter III of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations with nomenclature and other technical amendments. After the transfer date, and with the opportunity for public comment, the FDIC will consider incorporating these rules into its existing rules, amending them in a more substantive manner, or rescinding them, as appropriate.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2010 (75 FR 76926). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Required actions also include visually inspecting to determine the length and part number of the drain pipe attachment screws on the LAPF on the left- and right-hand pylons. Corrective actions include replacing or repairing the pipe, or replacing screws with incorrect part numbers with new screws. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

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

UPS requested that we extend the compliance time from 30 days to 30 months after the effective date of the AD. Per the commenter, the NPRM stated that the over-length screws installed on the affected aircraft were installed in accordance with the illustrated parts catalog (IPC), and that the correct attachment screws are clearly identified in the UPS A300-600 IPC, so there is a minimal probability of installing an over-length screw. The commenter stated that the compliance time of 30 days is too restrictive and believes that extending the threshold to 30 months for those operators whose IPC does not list an over-length fastener would provide an equivalent level of safety and better fit within an operator's routine maintenance program and eliminate any undue burden associated with a restrictive timetable.

We do not agree to extend the compliance time. The FAA received information confirming that over-length screws could have been introduced in production due to some erroneous drawings. Further, before 2007, not all IPCs were correct. Some of the IPCs for aircraft fitted with Pratt & Whitney engines were corrected in 2007. All IPCs were checked in 2010, and remaining erroneous IPCs were corrected. Although UPS may have the correct IPC, since some over-length screws could have been installed during production, a fleet inspection is needed to address the identified unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

UPS requested FAA concurrence that using an alternative washer, P/N NSA5149-3, as recommended by Airbus in Service Information Letter 54-035, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2010, will not have an impact on the AD. This washer would be used in lieu of P/N NSA5149-4 under the head of the attachment screws, to prevent cracking of the LAPF.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. The alternative washer is a recommended improvement, but not a modification addressing an unsafe condition/airworthiness issue. As the Service Information Letter mentions, both washers are fully interchangeable; the last IPC update (2010) also reflects this interchangeability. Therefore, we confirm that use of either washer is adequate. In this regard, and to avoid the need for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) on this issue in the future, we have added the washer having P/N NSA5149-3 to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change 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 our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 168 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work- hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $57,120, or $340 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 the 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 Operations office 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 Operations 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:

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 published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2010 (75 FR 80744). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive eddy current inspections—either (Option 1) two high frequency eddy current (ETHF) scans and one low frequency eddy current (ETLF) scan; or (Option 2) three ETHF scans—to detect cracking of the right and left upper center skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer, and replacing any cracked horizontal stabilizer upper center skin panel with a serviceable panel.

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

Several commenters requested clarification of the term “serviceable.”

American Airlines stated that the term “serviceable” applies to used and new aircraft parts. American commented that if a used skin plank that has been determined to be serviceable has been installed, then the part has accumulated fatigue damage and should be inspected using the repetitive method and the interval used prior to installation.

Aeropostal Hangars stated that the word “serviceable” can be associated with “removed in serviceable condition” from another aircraft. The commenter stated that although the manufacturing tolerances of fastener holes allow the installation of a removed panel from one aircraft to another, it is not always possible considering oversized fasteners, etc. We infer that this commenter wants us to change paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM to require replacement with a new, rather than serviceable, skin panel assembly.

We agree to change paragraph (g)(2) in this final rule to require replacement with a new skin panel because it is not generally possible to install a used skin panel assembly due to the difficulty in matching drill holes and because the AD does not include a provision for identifying and tracking the accumulated time on the used part. We revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Several commenters requested additional options for temporary repairs of certain crack configurations rather than replacement of skin panel assemblies before further flight.

American Airlines stated that it has accomplished temporary cracking repairs on 21 airplanes based on the manufacturer's instructions and have not had any crack propagation from the repaired parts. American stated that doing a temporary repair results in the operation of a safe airplane, which can then be scheduled for permanent repair at a time that causes the least disruption for the airline and the flying public. This commenter requested that we allow temporary repairs to a cracked skin panel assembly.

Delta Airlines presumed that skin panel cracks likely were caused by contributions from errors in removing or installing the skin panels because of the way the skin panels overlap. Some of Delta's cracked production skin panels were not adequately shimmed where cracks occurred. This commenter cited evidence that trim-out skin panel repairs would provide some reduction in stress concentration and allow skin panels to remain in service until a planned opportunity to change the panels occurs, which would reduce airplane out-of-service time. Delta stated that trim-out repairs should be allowed on skin panels and that the airplane should be allowed to stay in service until at least the next heavy maintenance visit.

Aeropostal Hangars stated that the finding of a crack in an in-service revenue aircraft that is not allowed temporary repairs could lead to a non-scheduled down time for the affected aircraft. We infer that this commenter wants us to allow temporary repairs.

We disagree. We have determined that it will be difficult to evaluate the effect of all temporary repairs on safety, particularly since other temporary repairs allowed on the aft horizontal skin panel by AD 2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045 (72 FR 25960, May 8, 2007), might already be present. We stated in the NPRM that a crack in the upper center skin panel might transfer the load to the upper aft skin panel, which might result in the upper aft skin panel cracking before reaching the existing inspection interval. Additionally, Aeropostal Hangars provided no data or information that would show that temporary repairs would provide an adequate level of safety.

In this case, we have determined that the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process is more appropriate for temporary repair approval. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that temporary repairs would provide an acceptable level of safety. Early field data indicate that substantially fewer center panel cracks than aft panel cracks will be detected; therefore, the AMOC process should not represent a substantial burden to operators. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Several commenters requested the option of replacing the whole horizontal stabilizer instead of replacing a cracked center skin panel because replacing the stabilizer would require only a few days of airplane out-of-service time instead of several weeks.

We disagree. Horizontal stabilizer assemblies do not meet the criteria for serialized, rotable life-limited parts. Further, additional tracking information that is specific to a maintenance facility might be needed to ensure that inspections are occurring at the required times for swapped parts. However, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that replacing the whole horizontal stabilizer instead of replacing a cracked center skin panel would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

American Airlines requested that this proposed AD allow the use of later revisions of the service bulletin. American stated that allowing later versions would eliminate the need for AMOC approval for future service bulletin revisions.

We disagree. We cannot use the phrase, “or later FAA-approved revisions,” in an AD when referring to the service document because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) policies for approval of materials “incorporated by reference.” However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision as an AMOC with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We have revised the applicability of this AD to identify The Boeing Company as the type certificate holder for the affected models.

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 will affect 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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:

On December 20, 2010, we issued EAD 2011-01-52, Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-111-AD, for the specified Schweizer model helicopters. That EAD requires, before further flight, removing the locknut and reinstalling the locknut while determining the locknut drag torque. If the drag torque is a minimum of 2 in-lbs, retorquing the locknut to 23 in-lbs is required. If the drag torque is not at least 2 in-lbs, replacing the locknut with an airworthy locknut is required. That AD resulted from a locknut working loose from a bolt attaching the tailboom support strut at the aft cluster fitting. Further investigation revealed that the locknut installed on the expandable bolt did not have the proper threads. We issued that EAD to prevent the strut and driveshaft separating from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since we issued AD 2011-01-52, the manufacturer has introduced a modification of the expandable bolts to allow the addition of a cotter pin.

We reviewed Schweizer Service Bulletins No. B-295 for Model 269A, A-1, B, and C helicopters, and No. C1B-032 for Model 269C-1 helicopters, both dated December 21, 2010. The service information specifies verifying sufficient drag torque on each locknut and applying the proper torque to each locknut. The service information also specifies modifying both expandable bolts to allow the addition of a cotter pin.

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 on other helicopters of these same type designs.

This AD retains the requirements in the existing EAD. This AD also requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), modifying both expandable bolts by drilling a hole through each bolt to allow the addition of a cotter pin. Thereafter, you may not install an expandable bolt unless that bolt has been modified in accordance with this AD. Modifying both expandable bolts in accordance with this AD is terminating action for the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD.

We refer to flight hours as hours TIS.

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 this condition, if not corrected, could result in the strut and driveshaft separating from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable because of the short compliance time 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 we did not provide notice and an opportunity to comment 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 the Docket Number FAA-2011-0593 and Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-002-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 585 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the total cost impact of this AD to be $100,035.

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 to the extent that it justifies making any regulatory distinctions, 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 Part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 39) as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12624). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Required actions include general visual inspections for damage of wiring bundles and feeders. Damage includes, but is not limited to: Signs of overheat, discoloration, or damaged and cut strands on the cables and insulating sleeves. Corrective actions for damage of wiring bundles and feeders include repairing damage. Other required actions include modifying the applicable wiring and layout, a general visual inspection for absence of marks of the rear tank wall at the contact area, installing a protective plate on the rear tank wall, and installing a hydraulic pipe if necessary. If contact marks are found, required actions include an eddy current inspection or a penetrant inspection for cracks, and repair if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have made a minor editorial change to paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) of this AD.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change 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 our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 21 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 65 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 $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $116,025, or $5,525 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 the 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 Operations office 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 Operations 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:

History

Federal Register Docket No. FAA-2011-0116, Airspace Docket No. 11-ANE-1, published on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36285), establishes Class E airspace at Brunswick Executive Airport, Brunswick, ME. This action will move up the effective date of this rulemaking, as the new approach procedures are to be published July 28, 2011. The original August 25, 2011, effective date was an oversight by the FAA. The FAA has determined good cause exists to have an effective date less than 30 days after the publication of this final rule because of the financial hardship the airport and its employees would incur with a delay of this magnitude.

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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Brunswick Executive Airport, Brunswick, ME.

In final rule FR Doc 2011-15305, on page 36285 in the Federal Register of June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36285), make the following correction:

On page 36285, in the third column, in the DATES section, remove the date August 28, 2011, and replace with the date July 25, 2011.

The FAA published a final rule entitled “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft,” in the Federal Register on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44772). That final rule established new requirements for the certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft. That final rule also redesignated the concluding text of § 43.9(a) as § 43.9(d) but did not revise a cross-reference in § 91.417(a)(2)(vi) to reflect the redesignation of that text. This technical amendment will correct § 91.417(a)(2)(vi) to reference the redesignated text in § 43.9(d).

Accordingly, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 91 is amended as follows:

On April 7, 2011, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to align its regulations for direct investment surveys with current practices. No comments on the proposed rule were received. Thus the proposed rule is adopted without change. This final rule amends 15 CFR Part 806 by revising §§ 806.14, 806.15, and 806.18 to remove the reporting requirements for several direct investment surveys. The surveys are:

BEA is removing the reporting requirements for the BE-13 and the BE-14 surveys which were suspended in 2009 in order to align its international survey program with available resources. The surveys had been used to collect identification information on the U.S. business being established or acquired and on the new foreign owner, information on the cost of the investment and source of funding, and limited financial and operating data for the newly established or acquired entity. The data had been used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. BEA continues to identify newly acquired or established U.S. affiliates of foreign investors and bring them into its international survey program through the BE-12, BE-15, and BE-605 surveys, which are the benchmark, annual, and quarterly surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States, respectively, but they are not separately identified in BEA's published statistics.

BEA is eliminating the regulations for the BE-21, BE-133B, BE-133C, BE-507, and BE-607 surveys since they have not been conducted in many years and are no longer necessary because the information is collected on other surveys of direct investment conducted by BEA.

In addition, BEA is making other minor revisions to its regulations to eliminate outdated information. These revisions eliminate references to outdated information regarding BE-10 survey forms and inactive OMB control numbers.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the seven surveys that BEA is eliminating have expired. The information collection approval for the BE-13 and BE-14 (under OMB control number 0608-0035) expired on August 31, 2009; the BE-21 approval (OMB control number 0608-0050) expired September 30, 1983; the BE-133B and BE-133C (OMB control number 0608-0024) expired December 31, 1994; the BE-507 approval (OMB control number 0608-0032) expired April 30, 1997; and the BE-607 approval (OMB control number 0608-0030) expired on May 31, 1991.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification or the economic impact of the rule more generally. No final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 806 as follows:

This rule was not published in proposed form since it relates to agency procedure and practice. TVA considers this rule to be a procedural rule which is exempt from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(A). This rule is not a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, TVA certifies that these regulatory amendments will not have a significant impact on small business entities. This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

On December 29, 2009, Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information, was published in the Federal Register. This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. On June 28, 2010, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) published its directive, 32 CFR Part 2001, Classified National Security Information, for implementing the Executive Order at 75 Federal Register 37254.

Since this rule is non-substantive, it is being made effective July 6, 2011.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, TVA amends 18 CFR part 1301 by adding Subpart E, Protection of National Security Classified Information, as follows:

On September 28, 2010, the Department published proposed amendments to the rules governing the submission of information to the Department in antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceedings and requested comments from the public. 75 FR 44163 (September 28, 2010) (“Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule included changes resulting from the Department's implementation of an electronic filing and documents management program named Import Administration Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System, or IA ACCESS. The Department conducted a pilot program to test IA ACCESS from July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010. 75 FR 32341 (June 8, 2010); Import Administration IA ACCESS Pilot Program, Public Notice and Request For Comments; Correction, 75 FR 34960 (June 21, 2010).

The Department received numerous comments on its Proposed Rule and pilot program. The Proposed Rule, the comments received, and this notice can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.Regulations.gov under Docket Number ITA-2010-0003. After analyzing and carefully considering all of the comments that the Department received in response to the Proposed Rule and after review of the experience gained during the IA ACCESS Pilot Program and the comments thereto, the Department has amended certain provisions of the Proposed Rule and is publishing its final regulations. In addition, the Department has addressed below the comments received pertaining to the pilot program, implementation, and other technical aspects of IA ACCESS and the procedures for the release of public and business proprietary information using IA ACCESS.

Sections 351.103(a) and 351.103(b) describe the functions of Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU) and Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit (APO/Dockets Unit), as well as their location and office hours. The prior regulation stated that one function of the CRU is to maintain the Subsidies Library. The new regulation states that the Subsidies Library is maintained by Import Administration's Subsidies Enforcement Office. The Department also amended § 351.103(a) to reflect that CRU is now located in Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building. The Department also amended sections 351.103(a) and 351.103(b) to specify that the office hours pertain to Eastern Time and to clarify that the Department's official address is 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW. Additionally, the Department deleted an extraneous period in “NW” in the addresses of the CRU and the APO/Dockets Unit.

The prior regulation provided, in § 351.103(c), that although a party is free to provide the Department with a courtesy copy of a document, a document is not considered to be officially received by the Department unless it is submitted to the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit in Room 1870 and stamped with the date and, where necessary, the time of the receipt. To implement electronic filing procedures, the Department is amending the regulation so that the Department will consider a document to be officially received by the Department only when it is filed electronically in its entirety using IA ACCESS, in accordance with § 351.303(b)(2)(i), or, where applicable, filed manually in the APO/Dockets Unit in accordance with § 351.303(b)(2)(ii). The Department also deleted the reference to courtesy copies of a document in the final rule. Because the Department will now require that documents be filed electronically, Import Administration staff will have faster access to filed submissions, thus reducing the need for courtesy copies.

With regard to manual filing, the Department had stated in the Proposed Rule that it would provide exceptions to the electronic filing requirement, but if a submitter experiences difficulty in filing a document electronically under circumstances for which “an” exception applies, the Department will consider the ability of the submitter and may modify the electronic filing requirement on a case-by-case basis. One commenter stated that this explanatory language in the Proposed Rule stood in contrast with the actual language in proposed § 351.303(b)(2), which stated that “if a submitter is unable to comply with the electronic filing requirement under certain circumstances for which no exception applies, the submitter must notify the Department promptly of any difficulties encountered in filing the document electronically.” Proposed Rule, 75 FR at 44164 (emphasis added). The commenter stated that the Department should unconditionally allow the relevant exception to apply, rather than make each situation a judgment call regarding the surrounding circumstances. The Department had made an inadvertent error in the explanatory language for § 351.103(c) in the Proposed Rule. The Department had intended to state that if a submitter experiences difficulty in filing a document electronically for which no exception applies, the submitter must notify the Department promptly of any difficulties encountered in filing the document electronically. However, the Department has amended sections 351.103(c) and 351.303(b)(2) so this language was not ultimately included in the final rule.

Section 351.103(d)(1) of the prior regulation required each interested party to file a letter of appearance separately from any other document filed with the Department, with the exception of a petitioner filing a petition in an investigation. The Department is amending the regulation to specify that it is this letter of appearance that triggers the interested party's inclusion in the public service list for the segment of the proceeding. The new regulation also refers to the definition of “interested party” under § 351.102(b)(29) to improve and clarify the explanation of how an interested party is placed on the public service list.

One commenter suggested that the notice of appearance should also indicate whether that person prefers to or consents to electronic service ( i.e., e-mail) for public documents and/or public versions of business proprietary documents. The Department has not adopted this suggestion because this rulemaking was intended to change the rules with regard to the filing of documents using IA ACCESS. It was not intended to change the rules regarding the method of serving documents. With the exception of the service of APO applications in § 351.305(b)(2) and the requirement that parties serve the complete final business proprietary document when bracketing changes have been made in § 351.303(c)(2)(ii), the Department has not changed the service requirements in the regulations.

Section 351.104(a) pertains to the official record of AD and CVD proceedings. The prior regulation stated that the CRU will maintain an official record of each proceeding. The Department is deleting the reference to the CRU because the official record will not be located in the CRU for documents filed after IA ACCESS is implemented. Instead, for those documents, IA ACCESS will comprise the official record. However, the CRU will continue to maintain the official record in paper form for those documents that were filed prior to the implementation of IA ACCESS.

In addition, § 351.104(a) previously stated that the Secretary will not use factual information, written argument, or other material that the Secretary returns to the submitter. The regulation also specifies the circumstances under which the official record will include a copy of a returned document. Sections 351.302(a) and 351.302(d) also previously set forth the procedures for requesting an extension of time limits and procedures for returning untimely filed submissions. The Department is amending these sections by replacing the term “return” with “reject.” Because the Department will use an electronic filing system, rather than physically returning inadmissible electronic submissions, the Department will reject such submissions and send written notice of the rejection to the submitter.

Section 351.104(b) pertains to the public record of AD and CVD proceedings. The prior regulation specified that the public record of each proceeding will be maintained by the CRU. In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed adding a statement that the public record will also be accessible online at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The Department is removing the reference to CRU in this final rule because, as explained above, IA ACCESS, not CRU, will comprise and contain the public record for documents filed after its implementation. The CRU will continue to maintain the public record in paper form for those documents that were filed prior to implementation of IA ACCESS. During the first phase of implementation (which begins on the effective date of this final rule), the public will be able to access the public record on IA ACCESS from computers in the CRU. After the second phase of implementation of IA ACCESS, the public will be able to access the public record on the Department's Web site from any computer with Internet access. Because the public record will not be accessible from the Web site on the effective date of this final rule, the Department is deleting the reference to the Web site.

Section 351.302(c) addresses procedures for requesting an extension of a specific time limit. The Department proposed amending the regulation by including a reference to § 351.303 in order to specify that an extension request be made in writing and properly filed using IA ACCESS. One commenter stated that the Department should clarify whether its proposed amendment to require extension requests to be made in writing suggests that telephonic or written requests by e-mail will never be accepted under the new regulations. The commenter stated that the Department must recognize that under certain circumstances, such as a power outage or a service outage on the part of an Internet service provider, it may be impossible to timely and properly file a written extension request with the Department through electronic filing. The Department has not changed the requirement that an extension request must be in writing and properly filed. The only change in the final regulation is a reference to the requirement that the extension request must be filed consistent with § 351.303, which contains the electronic filing requirement as well as provisions for when manual filing may be appropriate. In addition, as discussed below, if a user experiences difficulty in electronically filing an extension request or any other submission, a Help Desk line will be available during business hours to assist the user.

The Department is amending § 351.303 to require electronic filing of all documents and to specify when manual filing will be accepted as an alternative. The Department is also clarifying the identification of documents and correcting minor typographical errors in this section.

The Department is amending the heading for § 351.303 to add the term “Document Identification.” The Department is also amending § 351.303(a) to include “documentation identification” in the list of procedural rules covered by this regulation.

The Department is amending § 351.303(b) to add subparagraphs (1) through (4). Section 351.303(b) previously required all documents to be addressed and submitted to the APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department is amending this section by designating it as subparagraph (1). The Department is also including in § 351.303(b)(1) the term “Eastern Time” to clarify the time a submission is due when the submitter may be filing the submission from a different time zone. The Department is also omitting the period after “NW” in the Department's address, which was a typographical error.

In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed specifying that manually filed submissions must be submitted between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days, but that electronically filed submissions must be filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. The reason for the distinction is that manually filed submissions may only be filed during business hours, but electronically filed submissions may be filed at any time, provided that they are filed in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Two commenters requested clarification of whether electronically filed submissions will be due by 5 p.m. on the original due date, even if it falls on a weekend, holiday or non-business day. The commenters stated that parties whose deadlines do not fall on a business day will be at a disadvantage to parties whose deadlines fall on a business day and that there is no reason why the Department should grant less time for electronically filed documents on days when the Department is closed. Another commenter stated that electronic filing largely eliminates the rationale for a 5 p.m. deadline and suggested that the Department should require that documents to be filed prior to midnight on that date. The same commenter proposed, alternatively, that if the Department will maintain its requirement that different filing events be used for files that exceed the system's file size limit, then the Department should adopt other procedures to avoid harsh results. For example, the commenter suggested setting the deadline for such large documents at 6 p.m.

In response to the first two comments, the Department is amending the language in § 351.303(b)(1) to clarify that where the due date for either an electronic or manual filing falls on a non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents filed on the next business day. With regard to the proposals to change the filing deadline to midnight or, alternatively, 6 p.m. for submissions requiring multiple filing events, the Department has not adopted either proposal. The APO/Dockets Unit, which will continue to process manually filed documents, will maintain its current hours of operation, 8:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. Eastern Time, in order to provide equal treatment for both electronic and manual submissions. In addition, the Department's technical support for electronic filing will not be available after 5 p.m., so the Department believes that a 5 p.m. deadline is appropriate.

The Department is adding § 351.303(b)(2), which sets forth the electronic filing requirement using IA ACCESS and the exemptions to that requirement. This regulation also refers to the IA ACCESS Handbook, which contains detailed filing procedures that a submitter must follow. The IA ACCESS Handbook is available on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia .

In the Proposed Rule, the Department stated that exceptions to the electronic filing requirement will be set forth in the IA ACCESS Handbook. Proposed § 351.303(b)(2)(i) stated that if a submitter were unable to comply with the electronic filing requirement under certain circumstances for which no exception in the IA ACCESS Handbook applies, in accordance with section 782(c) of the Tariff Act, as amended, the Department will consider the ability of the submitter and may modify the electronic filing requirements on a case-by-case basis.

The Department received numerous comments with regard to this regulation. Several commenters expressed the need for the Department to disclose the specific exceptions to or exemptions from the electronic filing requirement. One commenter stated that exceptions to the electronic filing requirement should be set forth in the regulations themselves, despite the commenter's agreement with the Department's rationale that the exceptions may evolve over time. The commenter stated that at a minimum, the initial list of exceptions should be inserted in the regulations with a notice that the list be amended as changes are made and that, until such time as the regulations can be updated, unpublished changes may be temporarily found on the Department's Web site. Another commenter requested that the Department establish a standard set of exemptions which do not require a case-by-case decision. In addition, the commenter proposed the development of a bulky document standard, whereby documents over a certain size would be routinely filed manually, without the need to request prior authorization on a case-by-case basis.

After considering these comments, the Department is including in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A) two exemptions from the electronic filing requirement. First, as proposed by one commenter, the Department has adopted a bulky document standard, whereby documents exceeding 500 pages may be filed manually, with the inclusion of a cover sheet and separator sheets generated using IA ACCESS. The Department finds that giving parties the option of manually filing bulky documents will facilitate the processing and review of such documents as parties make the transition to an electronic filing system. Manual filing is optional for such documents, and the Department anticipates that parties will prefer to electronically file bulky documents as they become more accustomed to electronic filing.

In determining whether a document qualifies as bulky, a submitter must not include database printouts in the page count, and as stated in § 351.303(c)(3), and further discussed below, database printouts need not be submitted to the Department. The Department has included detailed instructions regarding such manual filings in the IA ACCESS Handbook, and parties must follow those instructions.

The Department has also exempted large database files from the electronic filing requirement in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A). As explained in detail in the IA ACCESS Handbook, the Department requires database files exceeding the maximum file size (currently 20 MB) to be filed manually in the APO/Dockets Unit on a CD or DVD as a separate submission accompanied with a cover sheet generated in IA ACCESS. Detailed instructions regarding the filing of database files are included in the IA ACCESS Handbook and parties must follow those instructions. Unlike the bulky document exemption, the large data file exemption is mandatory.

One commenter stated that the IA ACCESS system should have flexibility to allow exceptions to mandatory electronic filing and that the Department should make accommodations for technical difficulties.

In response to these comments, in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B), the Department has specified that if the IA ACCESS system is unable to accept filings continuously or intermittently over the course of any period of time greater than one hour between 12 noon and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, or for any duration of time between 4:31 p.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, then a person may manually file the document in the APO/Dockets Unit. The Department will provide notice of such technical failures on its Help Desk line. Procedures for manual filing in this situation are provided in the IA ACCESS Handbook.

Apart from the two exemptions specified in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A) and the IA ACCESS technical failures described in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B), the Department has also specified in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) that if a submitter is unable to comply with the electronic filing requirement, as provided in § 351.103(c) and in accordance with section 782(c) of the Act, the submitter must notify the Department promptly of the reasons the submitter is unable to file the document electronically, and provide a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which to submit the information. The Department will consider the ability of the submitter and modify the electronic filing requirement on a case-by-case basis. As such, if an exception is made, it will apply to the submitter requesting it for the document on which the modification is being requested. An exception made under this provision will not serve as a blanket exemption for all submitters for future submissions.

One commenter stated that prior to finalizing any regulations applicable to the electronic filing process, the Department should disclose its entire list of exceptions and allow the public to comment on them. This commenter stated that doing so would allow parties to work with the Department in reducing or expanding the list of exceptions based on parties' experiences with other electronic filing systems.

Although the Department indicated in the Proposed Rule that it wanted the flexibility to amend the list of exceptions on an ongoing basis, the Department has determined that it is more appropriate to explicitly include the above exemptions in the regulations, subject to amendment through the notice and comment rulemaking process. Should the Department determine that additional exemptions are appropriate, it will amend the regulations as needed and solicit comments at that time.

One commenter suggested that the Department should create exceptions for petitions for the initiation of an AD or CVD investigation, pro se respondents, small businesses, and documents not readily susceptible to scanning such as physical exhibits. We have not adopted these proposals. The Department has decided not to create standard exceptions based on the document type being filed, such as a petition. Doing so would result in the imposition of different rules for counsel to petitioners and counsel to respondents. The commenter has not explained why pro se respondents and small businesses should automatically be exempt from the electronic filing requirement. Indeed, the Department believes that electronic filing will ultimately reduce the cost and burden on outside parties and thus be beneficial to pro se respondents and small businesses. The Department will also continue its practice of working closely with pro se respondents and small businesses in assisting them through the filing process. With regard to this commenter's request for an exception for physical exhibits, we have never required the submission of physical exhibits: Therefore we will not make an electronic filing exception for them. The Department prefers that rather than submit a physical exhibit, which may be large, cumbersome, or even perishable, a submitter should include in its submission a narrative description and/or photograph or video format so that the characteristics of the physical exhibit may be included on the record of the proceeding. If the submitter wishes to submit a physical exhibit, the submitter will need to obtain prior written permission from the Department for an exception to file the physical exhibit manually in accordance with § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C).

One commenter recommended the Department consider a larger file size limitation, citing examples to the file size limits of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Court of International Trade. Another commenter stated that if file size limits are imposed, they should be no less restrictive than the U.S. International Trade Commission's limits: 50 separate attachments of 25 MB each in a single filing event. Another commenter noted that because documentation is often submitted to a legal representative in its original form and needs to be submitted to the Department in Adobe portable document format (“PDF”) or JPEG format, the memory size of such files is much larger than those prepared in Microsoft Word or Excel. This could result in possibly dozens of electronic submissions, requiring the Department to piece together multiple sets of files. Thus, the commenter recommended increasing the memory limitation of the size of files to the largest possible under the electronic filing system being proposed, including both for the overall memory threshold and the individual attachment threshold. Another commenter stated that to avoid the need for separate filing events, the Department should impose limits only on the size of the individual attachments, without limits on the total file size. The commenter further stated that repetitive entry of identical information is burdensome and may lead to error. Finally, two commenters recommended including the ability to link documents, so that the Department can more easily piece together submissions where the individual sections exceed the size limitation.

With respect to the comment on setting limits on file size, the Department has set the individual document file ( i.e., case briefs, general comments, etc. ) size limit to 4 MB per file. A document can be separated into numerous files, which can be uploaded in batches of five, provided each individual file is no larger than 4 MB and the total combined file size of the grouping does not exceed 20 MB. The user may upload up to a total of 99 additional files, grouped in combinations of five, with the same individual and combined file size as mentioned, and these individual files will be linked together, as suggested by one commenter. In addition, the Department has set the individual data file ( i.e., SAS files, databases, etc. ) size limit to 20 MB per file. Thus, the Department expects that IA ACCESS will be able to accommodate large documents which will be filed as linked, smaller files. The Department added this feature during the last month of the Release 1 pilot program.

The Department has determined 4 MB to be the appropriate individual document file size limit and 20 MB to be the appropriate individual data file size limit based on numerous factors, each of which have been considered and balanced. Such factors include the ability of the IA ACCESS system to accommodate the high volume of anticipated submissions based on current server resources, the difficulty for Department personnel to work with larger files, and the available Internet bandwidth to users throughout the world, which may limit their ability to upload larger documents. The Department has also determined that because data files are submitted less frequently than document submissions, the IA ACCESS system is capable of accepting individual data files of 20 MB in size. In addition, the larger individual file size for data meets the important need of keeping databases intact.

Although the Department has determined 4 MB and 20 MB to be the appropriate individual file sizes for documents and data files, respectively, at this time, the Department anticipates that the attachment and overall file size requirement may change over time as Internet resources expand throughout the world and the Department gains experience in administering the IA ACCESS system and using larger files.

As for the commenter's statement that documentation must be submitted in JPEG format, IA ACCESS does not currently accept files in JPEG format.

The Department acknowledges that the U.S. International Trade Commission and Court of International Trade have different file size limitations for electronic filing. However, the Department must base the individual file size limitation for IA ACCESS upon the specific needs of the Department's AD/CVD proceedings, such as the factors noted above as well as the type, size, frequency, and security classification of documents. Thus, the Department has not chosen to align its file size limitations to those of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Court of International Trade.

One commenter noted that the Department did not propose to require submitters who notify the Department promptly of any difficulties encountered in submitting information to the Department to also provide a suggested alternative method for submitting the information, which seems to be required under section 782(c) of the Act. The commenter suggested that the Department specifically reference this obligation in its new regulation, particularly when the failure to comply with the requirement could substantially harm the submitter in relation to its respective proceeding and the “burden” on the Department of including notification of the requirement in its regulation is minimal.

In its explanation of § 351.303(b)(2), which addresses these requirements of section 782(c) of the Act, the Department noted that it did not discuss the requirement to propose an alternative method of submission in the regulations because it anticipates that the alternative suggestion would be for the submitter to file the submission manually. However, the Department stated that this omission does not affect a submitter's obligation to satisfy such a requirement. The Department agrees with the commenter that the language in section 782(c) of the Act should be included in § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) of the new regulations to put the public on notice of the requirement. Accordingly, the Department has amended § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) to include the statutory requirement under section 782(c) of the Act that the submitter suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit the requested information.

The Department is adding § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(D) to provide the number of hardcopies required if a document is filed manually. Specifically, a submitter must manually file in the APO/Dockets Unit one hardcopy of each document, with the exception of a business proprietary document filed under the bulky document exemption, which requires two copies. This regulation also specifies that a manual filing requires submission of a cover sheet generated in IA ACCESS in accordance with § 351.303(b)(3).

The Department is adding § 351.303(b)(3) to specify that a cover sheet is required for manual submissions. A submitter must generate the cover sheet online at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and print it for submission to the APO/Dockets Unit along with the hardcopy manual submission. The purpose of the cover sheet is to provide the Department with information indicating, among other things, the party filing the submission, the segment of the proceeding, and the type of submission being filed. The cover sheet will contain a barcode that will be used to identify and track the submission. The Department has removed the proposed requirement that a person complete a coversheet for a document that is filed electronically. Although IA ACCESS requests the same information for an electronic filing as it requires on the cover sheet for a manual filing, in the electronic filing mode, that information is referred to as “IA ACCESS Document Information,” not a cover sheet. Therefore, the Department has deleted this reference from the final rule. The Department had previously proposed including a statement that the person submitting the cover sheet is responsible for the accuracy of all information contained in the cover sheet. The Department has also removed that statement from the final rule because the information appearing on the cover sheet already appears on the submission itself, the accuracy of which is already subject to certifications of factual accuracy that accompany the submission.

The Department is adding § 351.303(b)(4) to identify and distinguish among the five document classifications that may be submitted to the Department. The Department has observed confusion among interested parties with regard to the identification and labeling of documents, especially with regard to documents containing double-bracketed information. Thus, the Department finds it necessary to standardize the identification and labeling of all documents. In addition, a submitter will need to identify the document properly when inputting the document information in IA ACCESS before filing the document. The document identification will determine who will have access to the document. Misidentification of a document may result in the unauthorized disclosure of business proprietary information. The Department is also moving the definition of “business proprietary version” from § 351.303(c)(2)(i) to § 351.303(b)(4). In addition, the Department is using the phrase “business proprietary document or business proprietary/APO version, as applicable” rather than only “business proprietary version” to make the terminology consistent with that in proposed § 351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii).

Accordingly, the Department is adding sections 351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii) to identify and define the three types of business proprietary submissions. The document described in § 351.303(b)(4)(i) is called “Business Proprietary Document—May Be Released Under APO.” This business proprietary document contains only single-bracketed business proprietary information which a party agrees to release under administrative protective order (“APO”).

The document classifications described in § 351.303(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) are business proprietary documents that use double-bracketing. The document described in § 351.303(b)(4)(ii) is called “Business Proprietary Document-May Not Be Released Under APO.” This document may contain both single and double-bracketed business proprietary information, but the submitter does not agree to the release of the double-bracketed information under APO. In this document, the information inside the double brackets is included.

The third document classification described in § 351.303(b)(4)(iii) is called “Business Proprietary/APO Version—May Be Released Under APO.” It must contain only single-bracketed business proprietary information. The submitter must omit the double-bracketed business proprietary information from this version because this version will be released under APO. This is why the term “APO Version” is included in the name of the document.

The Department is adding § 351.303(b)(4)(iv) and (v), which identify the two types of public submissions. The first is the “Public Version,” which corresponds to a business proprietary document, except it omits all business proprietary information, whether single or double-bracketed. This section also refers to the specific filing requirements for filing the public version, which is found in § 351.304(c). The second is the “Public Document,” which contains only public information. In the Proposed Rule, the Department had stated that there is no corresponding business proprietary version for a public document. For the final rule, the Department is amending § 351.303(b)(4)(v) to change the term “business proprietary version” to “business proprietary document” in order to make the terminology consistent with § 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).

One commenter disagreed with the renaming of “business proprietary version” to “business proprietary document.” The commenter stated that the term “business proprietary version” implies that a public version will be filed on the next business day, while “business proprietary document” implies that no public version will be filed. The commenter also stated that the change will generate more confusion for a term that has become standard at both the Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission and that the existing confusion will be rectified by the inclusion of the definition of “APO version” in the amended regulations. Finally, the commenter stated that differing terminology may create unintended confusion regarding documents that must be filed at both agencies.

The Department does not agree that the proposed amendment will generate confusion. A public version of a business proprietary document must always be filed in accordance with § 351.304(c), and it therefore must correspond to the business proprietary document. It is possible that the commenter meant that when a business proprietary document is filed on the first day, in accordance with the one-day lag rule, it is in fact filed without the public version. However, the Department is not basing the document classifications on when the documents/versions are filed relative to one another. The Department's reasoning stems from the content of the submissions. When compared to the other document classifications, the business proprietary document is the complete document and contains all business proprietary information enclosed in brackets. Thus, it should be referred to as a “document” and not a “version.” The public version and APO version are versions of that document and are therefore named as such.

In § 351.303(c)(1), 351.303(c)(2)(ii), and 351.303(c)(2)(iii), the Department is deleting the requirement that a person must file multiple copies of each submission with the Department ( i.e., six copies of public documents, or the combination of: (A) six copies of the business proprietary version and (B) three copies of the public version of a document). The Department has replaced these sections with § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(D), which specifies the number of hard copies required if a document is filed manually. The original reason for these requirements concerning copies of a document was to make a copy available to each person in the Import Administration team administering the proceeding. However, with implementation of electronic filing and the uploading of manually filed submissions by CRU onto IA ACCESS, the Import Administration team will be able to access all submissions electronically and print them from IA ACCESS, making additional copies unnecessary. In § 351.303(c)(2)(i), the Department is deleting the sentence defining “business proprietary version” because it has been included in proposed § 351.303(b)(4).

Section 351.303(c)(2)(i) of the prior regulation stated that a person must file one copy of the business proprietary version of any document with the Department within the applicable time limit. The Department is deleting the reference to the copy and changing “business proprietary version” to “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that in 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii). The Department is also clarifying that the one-day lag rule does not apply to a petition, amendments to a petition, or any other submission filed prior to the initiation of an investigation. This amendment reflects the Department's practice not to apply the one-day lag rule during the 20-day pre-initiation period. This practice ensures that a business proprietary document and public version are filed simultaneously in their final form. When the Department has only 20 days to initiate an investigation, waiting one business day for the final version of a document further shortens an already short deadline, especially when petitioners may be required to file responses to requests for additional information. In addition, because of the Department's obligation to provide a copy of the public version of the petition and all amendments to the petition to embassies of exporting countries named in a petition under § 351.202(f), the Department does not allow submissions under the one-day lag rule so that the embassies may obtain their copies as expeditiously as possible.

Section 351.303(c)(2)(ii) of the prior regulation stated that, although a person must file the final business proprietary version of a document with the Department, the person may serve only those pages containing bracketing corrections on other persons. The Department is amending this regulation to replace “business proprietary version of a document” with “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii). This amendment will not change the requirement that a person must file a complete, final business proprietary document on the first business day after the business proprietary document is filed. The Department is also amending this regulation to specify that the final business proprietary document must be identical in all respects to the business proprietary document filed on the previous day, except for any bracketing corrections and the omission of the warning “Bracketing of Business Proprietary Information Is Not Final for One Business Day After Date of Filing,” in accordance with § 351.303(d)(2)(v). We believe emphasizing that the two documents must be identical with the exception of bracketing corrections and the requisite warning pertaining to bracketing is necessary because, in our experience, there appears to be some confusion about whether the dates or the content of the cover letters of the two documents should remain unchanged. With this amendment, the Department hopes to clarify that, except as discussed above, the two documents must be identical.

The Department is also amending this regulation to require persons to serve the complete final business proprietary document on other persons only if there are bracketing corrections. One commenter expressed agreement with this proposed change in its comments on the Proposed Rule. The new regulation also makes explicit that if there are no bracketing corrections, a person need not serve a copy of the final business proprietary document on persons on the APO service list. The reason service is not required in the absence of bracketing corrections is that in accordance with § 351.303(f), a person will have already served the business proprietary document filed on the due date. If there are no bracketing corrections, then there is no need to serve the business proprietary document again.

Section 351.303(c)(2)(iv) of the prior regulation stated that if a person serves authorized applicants with a business proprietary version of a document that excludes information in double brackets pursuant to § 351.304(b)(2), the person must simultaneously file with the Department one copy of those pages in which information in double brackets has been excluded. The Department is amending this section by adding a reference to § 351.303(b)(4)(iii) and correctly identifying the document type as the “Business Proprietary/APO Version.” The Department now requires a person to file the complete Business Proprietary/APO Version of the document, as opposed to only those pages in which the double-bracketed information has been excluded, so that it has the complete document for the official record. The original purpose of requiring a copy of only the pages where the double-bracketed information has been omitted was to conserve the amount of paper filed by the submitter. However, because the document will be filed electronically, the submitter will be able to reduce the amount of paper used while simultaneously ensuring that the Department receives the same submission that is served on the APO authorized applicants.

In addition to the foregoing amendments to § 351.303(c)(1) and 351.303(c)(2)(i)-(iv), the Department replaced the term “business proprietary version” with “business proprietary document” in these sections, as well as in the title of § 351.303(c). These amendments make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii).

Section 351.303(c)(3) previously required that if factual information is submitted on computer media at the request of the Secretary, it must be accompanied by the number of copies of any computer printout specified by the Secretary. This regulation also required that information on computer media must be releasable under APO, consistent with § 351.305. The Department is deleting the statement that the Secretary may require submission of factual information on computer media because it implies that the Secretary may make such requests only occasionally. Over time, the Department has requested with increasing frequency the submission of sales and cost databases to accompany questionnaire responses. This practice has become the norm rather than the exception. In order to clarify how such electronic databases should be submitted in conjunction with the electronic filing requirement, the Department is amending this section to require that all sales files, cost files, or other electronic databases submitted to the Department be filed electronically in the format specified by the Department. For the final rule, the Department has revised this language to clarify the situation in which a submitter would file a database manually, citing to § 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A), which requires large data files to be filed manually. The Department is also amending § 351.303(c)(3) to remind submitters that all electronic database information must be releasable under APO regardless of whether it is filed electronically or manually.

The Department wants to emphasize that the complete databases submitted by the parties will now be maintained in an electronic format in the official and public files. Previously, parties submitted only one electronic copy of the database, which became the working copy used by the Department in performing its calculations. The official and public records only contained hardcopy printouts of the databases, and oftentimes, the printouts reflected only a portion of the databases if they were voluminous. Because the Department will have the capability to accept the databases in an electronic format, the Department has had to consider how parties can bracket or seek business proprietary treatment for information on the databases when the format in which the data is presented does not allow for the use of brackets to indicate the information for which the submitter is requesting business proprietary treatment. Thus, the Department has determined that it will deem all databases containing business proprietary information that are submitted in electronic format as business proprietary submissions. Brackets will not be required on the electronic databases. However, the Department urges submitters to include, where possible, headers or footers requesting business proprietary treatment of the information on the databases. For public versions of databases, the Department requires submitters to submit the public version in a PDF format. The public version of the database must still be publicly summarized and ranged in accordance with § 351.304(c). The public version of the database, together with the narrative portion of a questionnaire response, will indicate the fields and values for which the submitter requests business proprietary treatment. Deeming the entire electronic database as business proprietary will not render each and every field and value submitted in the database as eligible for business proprietary treatment.

One commenter stated that the Department already envisions that databases may be filed electronically, where possible, therefore IA ACCESS should accommodate the filing of electronic files other than PDF files, where appropriate. The Department has selected PDF as the appropriate file format for documents because the Department seeks a uniform format that is widely available, acceptable by users, and compatible with most computer systems. Furthermore, as a PDF, the content of the submissions cannot be altered and the PDF format ensures that the Department will be able to open the submissions in the future. With regard to databases, submitters should refer to the questionnaire or specific request for information by the Department to determine the acceptable formats for the requested databases. The Department has also made available in the IA ACCESS Handbook additional information as to file types accepted in IA ACCESS and specific instructions which parties must follow when filing databases.

The Department is amending § 351.303(d) to make references to the filing terminology consistent with the other terminology used in the rest of this section. Specifically, the Department has replaced the term “copies” with “submissions” because, as stated above, the Department will no longer require a person to file multiple copies of a submission.

Section 351.303(d)(2) provides the specifications and markings required for filing documents with the Department. Paragraph (d)(2) specifies that a person must submit documents on letter-size paper, single-sided, and double-spaced, and that the first page of each document must contain information in the formats described in subparagraphs (i) through (vi). The Department amended paragraph (d)(2) to specify the dimensions of letter-size paper (8 1/2 × 11 inches). Because CRU staff will need to insert all manually filed submissions into a scanner, the Department requires that manually filed documents be bound only with a paper clip, butterfly/binder clip, or rubber band. The omission of binding will ensure that the paper in the submission is not damaged, thereby facilitating the scanning process. Thus, the Department has prohibited the use of stapled, spiral, velo, or other type of solid binding in manual submissions. The Department has also amended paragraph (d)(2) to require the placement of the cover sheet described in paragraph (b)(3) before the first page of the document being manually filed. With regard to electronically filed documents, the new regulation specifies that the document be formatted to print on letter-size (8 1/2 × 11 inch) paper and double-spaced. The new regulation also specifies that spreadsheets, unusually sized exhibits, and databases are best utilized in their original printing format and should not be reformatted for submission.

Section 351.303(d)(2)(iii) of our prior regulation required submitters to indicate on the third line of the upper right-hand corner the segment of a proceeding for which a document is being filed and, if for a review, the inclusive dates of the review, the type of review, and section number of the Act corresponding to the type of review. The Department is amending § 351.303(d)(2)(iii) to replace the current list of types of segments with a non-exhaustive list. The new regulation also provides a specific date format for use in indicating the period of review, if relevant. The Department has eliminated the requirement that the submitter indicate the relevant section of the Act that corresponds to the type of review for which the document is submitted. The Department has observed that this marking requirement is often overlooked by submitters, and when it is included, submitters often refer only to section 751 of the Act without referring to the specific subsection. Because the new regulation requires a submitter to indicate the specific segment of a proceeding in which a document is being filed, the Department has determined it would be redundant to also require the submitter to specify the particular subsection of the Act corresponding to the type of review.

The Department is also amending § 351.303(d)(2)(v) to make it consistent with the terminology in § 351.303(b)(4). Specifically, the prior regulation required that, on the fifth and subsequent lines of each submission, a submitter must indicate whether any portion of the document contains business proprietary information and, if so, to list the applicable page numbers and state either “Document May Be Released Under APO” or “Document May Not Be Released Under APO.” The Department is changing the terminology so that the term “Document” is replaced with either “Business Proprietary Document -” or “Business Proprietary/APO Version,” as applicable, so that it is consistent with the terminology in § 351.303(b)(4). The Department is also capitalizing the first letter in the words “is” and “be” to correct typographical errors. The prior version of 351.303(d)(2)(v) also stated that the warning “Bracketing of Business Proprietary Information Is Not Final for One Business Day After Date of Filing” must not be included in “the copies of the final business proprietary version filed on the next business day.” The Department is deleting the term “the copies of” because a submitter will no longer be filing multiple copies of a submission, in accordance with proposed § 351.303(b)(2)(v). The Department is also replacing the term “business proprietary version” with “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4).

Section 351.303(d)(2)(vi) of the prior regulation required that public versions of business proprietary documents contain the marking requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(v) of this section and that the first page is conspicuously marked “Public Version.” The Department is amending this section to refer to both the public version and the business proprietary document in the singular. This amendment clarifies that there is only one public version of a business proprietary document. The Department is also adding subparagraph 351.303(d)(2)(vii) to this section to require the same markings for a “Public Document” as for a “Public Version,” with the exception being use of the word “Document” instead of “Version.” These amendments bring the language in this section into conformity with the document classifications in paragraph (b)(4).

Section 351.303(f) of the prior regulation stated that except as provided in sections 351.202(c), 351.207(f)(1), and paragraph (f)(3) of this section, a person filing a document with the Department simultaneously must serve a copy of the document on all other persons on the service list by personal service or first class mail. The Department is changing the reference to § 351.207(f)(1) to § 351.208(f)(1) to correct a typographical error.

Section 351.303(f)(1)(ii) of the prior regulation stated that a party may serve a public version or a business proprietary version of a document containing only the server's own business proprietary information on persons on the service list by facsimile or other electronic transmission process, with the consent of the person to be served. The Department is changing the reference to “business proprietary version of a document” to “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that used in § 351.303(b)(4). The Department is also specifying that the business proprietary document may be served on persons on the APO service list and that the public version of such a document may be served on persons on the public service list by facsimile transmission or other electronic transmission process, with the consent of the person to be served.

One commenter asked the Department to clarify in § 351.303(f) that public documents may also be served electronically. The Department has amended this regulation to include public documents in the types of documents that may be served by facsimile or other electronic transmission with the consent of the party being served.

One commenter stated that changes affecting service of business proprietary information should be introduced gradually, subject to extensive comment. Another commenter stated that the Department should mandate electronic service to parties on the respective service list (where allowed under the Department's regulations). That commenter noted that electronic service is consistent with the Department's stated goal of creating efficiencies in both the process and costs associated with filing and maintaining documents, and that electronic service would be consistent with the Court of International Trade's filing system currently in place. The commenter stated that the Department could expressly state that electronic service will not be mandatory where a document is filed manually.

The Department agrees that changes affecting service of business proprietary information should be introduced gradually and be subject to comment. With the exception of service of APO applications, which were previously required to be served by the same means as they were filed with the Department (§ 351.305(b)(2)), and the requirement that parties serve the complete final business proprietary document when bracketing corrections are made under the one-day lag rule (§ 351.303(c)(2)(ii)), the Department has not changed any of the service requirements in the regulations. The Department has decided to focus on electronic filing, rather than electronic service, at this time. However, parties may continue to consent to electronic service in accordance with § 351.303(f)(1)(ii).

Although the Department had proposed correcting a typographical error in § 351.303(g), that regulation is currently the subject of another rulemaking. See 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011). Therefore, the Department has not made any changes to § 351.303(g) in this final rule.

Section 351.304(b)(2)(iii) of the prior regulation stated that “the submitting person may exclude the information in double brackets from the business proprietary information version of the submission served on authorized applicants.” The Department is amending this sentence to replace “business proprietary information version” with “Business Proprietary/APO Version” to make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4)(iii).

In addition, the Department is amending § 351.304(b)(1) by creating two subsections. Subsection 351.304(b)(1)(i) addresses the identification of business proprietary information in general, and subsection 351.304(b)(1)(ii) addresses the identification of business proprietary information with regard to electronic databases. The Department is specifying in the latter subsection that in accordance with § 351.303(c)(3), an electronic database containing business proprietary information need not contain brackets for the submitter to request proprietary treatment for its information. Instead, the submitter must select the security classification “Business Proprietary Document—May Be Released Under APO” at the time of filing to request business proprietary treatment of the information contained in the database.

Section 351.304(c) of the prior regulation provided requirements for filing the public version of a business proprietary document. Section 351.304(c)(1) specified, among other things, that the public version must be filed on the first business day after the filing deadline for the “business proprietary version of the submission.” The Department is amending this section to replace “business proprietary version of the submission” with “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).

Section 351.304(c)(2) of the prior regulation specified, among other things, that if a submitting party discovers that it failed to bracket information correctly, the submitter may file a complete, corrected “business proprietary version of the submission” along with the public version. The Department is amending this section to replace “business proprietary version of the submission” with “business proprietary document” to make the terminology consistent with that in § 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).

One commenter asked the Department to amend § 351.304(c), which currently states that if an individual portion of the numerical data is voluminous, at least one percent representative of that portion must be summarized. The commenter proposed limiting the amount of information to be summarized from one percent of the portion of the data to one percent of the entire submission because the ranging of data takes a considerable amount of time and increases the cost of compliance with the regulation. The Department did not propose any changes to this section of the regulations in the Proposed Rule. Further, the Department continues to find that requiring public summarization of one percent of each portion of data best implements section 777(b)(1)(B) of the Act, which requires public summaries of information submitted to the Department, and best serves the ability of the public to participate in the Department's proceedings. Thus, the Department has not made the requested change in the final rule.

Section 351.304(d)(1) of the prior regulation stated that the Secretary will return a submission that does not meet the requirements of section 777(b) of the Act, which governs the Department's APO rules of practice and procedure. Section 351.304(d)(1) of the prior regulation further specified that the submitting person may take any of four enumerated actions within two business days of the Secretary's explanation of its reasons for returning the submission. Prior § 351.304(d)(1)(iv) also specified that one of those enumerated actions is the submission of other material concerning the subject matter of the returned information and that, if the submitting person takes none of the enumerated actions, the Secretary will not consider the returned submission. As discussed above, because the Department will be using an electronic filing system, rather than physically return an electronic submission, the Department will instead reject the submission. The Department will follow the same procedure for manually filed submissions. Thus, the Department is amending the regulations to change the term “return” with “reject” in sections 351.304(d)(1) and 351.304(d)(1)(iv).

Section 351.305(b)(2) of the prior regulation required the applicant for access to business proprietary information under APO to serve the APO application in the same manner and at the same time as it serves the application on the Department. The Department is amending this regulation because an applicant cannot currently serve other parties electronically using IA ACCESS. Although an applicant may serve other parties electronically with the consent of the parties being served, the Department will not require electronic service. The Department recognizes that a party being served an APO application has a limited time period in which to serve its previously-filed business proprietary submissions on a newly-approved applicant; therefore, the Department is requiring that the applicant serve the other parties in the most expeditious manner possible, simultaneously with the filing of the APO application with the Department.

One commenter stated that it supports the Department's plans to conduct additional pilot programs and strongly suggests that the Department consider a mechanism by which the experiences gained in the first pilot program can be shared with the larger user public. The commenter stated that the Department should conduct additional focus groups and public meetings for Release 2 and 3 Pilots and that the Department should consider holding larger scale public meetings. With regard to implementation of IA ACCESS, one commenter proposed a staggered implementation process, such that the Department would first require electronic filing of only public documents for a period of time before requiring electronic filing of business proprietary documents. The commenter stated that users may not have experience with the electronic filing of business proprietary documents, and the staggered implementation would allow users time to implement new internal procedures, including security measures, or seek guidance from the Department on particular matters, based on practical prior experience with public filings. In addition, the commenter stated that the Department should consider providing training sessions prior to the start of Release 1, noting that the training sessions conducted by the Court of International Trade for its electronic filing system were helpful. The commenter also stated that the Department should consider a “recall” procedure to enable users to promptly remove electronically filed documents if business proprietary information has been inadvertently disclosed or other problems are discovered after filing.

Response: As discussed in the notice regarding the IA ACCESS pilot program, IA ACCESS will be implemented in three separate phases, or releases, with each release implementing an additional feature of IA ACCESS. 75 FR 32341 (June 8, 2010). Release 1 will allow for the electronic submission of documents, Release 2 will allow for the electronic release of public documents and public versions, and Release 3 will allow for the electronic release of business proprietary documents to authorized applicants. Each phase will be preceded by a pilot program designed to test and evaluate the functionality of that release. The Department completed the pilot program for Release 1 on September 30, 2010. The Department received comments from pilot participants at the conclusion of the pilot and a summary of those comments is available to the public at http://iaaccess.trade.gov under the “Help” link. Comments on the second and third pilot programs will also be made available to the public in the same manner. The Department will hold additional focus groups and public meetings in conjunction with the Release 2 and 3 pilot programs. The Department will consider a large public meeting as the need arises.

The Department disagrees with the proposal to stagger the implementation of the electronic filing requirement such that only public filings will first be required for a period of time before requiring the filing of business proprietary documents. Staggering the implementation for public and business proprietary submissions is not practicable because it would require the Department to operate under two filing systems, one for public documents and one for proprietary documents, and such a bifurcated process would create the potential for confusion and inconsistency. Furthermore, requiring parties to manually file business proprietary submissions while electronically filing public versions of the corresponding submission will create additional work for parties and reduce the efficiencies inherent in electronic filing.

To alleviate the concerns associated with learning to use IA ACCESS, the Department will provide an IA ACCESS online training site one month prior to implementing Release 1. On the training site, users will be able to familiarize themselves with IA ACCESS by filing test documents and navigating the system. The Department has already provided and will continue to provide training prior to implementing Release 1, including online demonstrations, webinars and classes. Such training will provide users opportunities to confer with the Department regarding any questions pertaining to the system, including the implementation of any necessary procedures for the user, such as security measures.

With regard to a “recall” procedure, the Department did not adopt this proposal. The Department believes that the continuation of its current practice of providing assistance to those parties wishing to correct errors discovered after filing is the most effective way to address inadvertent disclosures. Where problems are discovered after filing, the user should contact the Department for assistance. Detailed procedures are included in the IA ACCESS Handbook. Where business proprietary information is inadvertently disclosed and only discovered after filing, the user should contact the APO/Dockets Unit as soon as possible.

One commenter proposed a three-month grace period whereby the Department allows users to file submissions manually, at the option of the user.

Response: The Department will not provide such a three-month grace period. Allowing a grace period would be extremely disruptive for the Department because it would require the Department to operate and synchronize two different filing, document management, and recordkeeping systems. As discussed above, however, the Department will provide an online training site one month prior to implementation of Release 1, so that users may have an opportunity to try out the system, practice filing test documents and familiarize themselves with IA ACCESS.

One commenter requested that the Department provide an opportunity to submit additional comments prior to publication of the final rule, including comments on other parties' comments on the proposed rule and on the views of the participants to the Release 1 pilot program. In addition, the commenter stated that the Department should make the IA ACCESS Handbook available prior to the start of Release 1 to allow users to become familiar with the new electronic filing rules and procedures before introduction of mandatory electronic filing. Two commenters requested that the Department provide an opportunity to submit comments on the upcoming IA ACCESS Handbook.

Response: The IA ACCESS Handbook is currently available. Parties will be given the opportunity to submit comments on the handbook on the IA ACCESS Web site at http://iaaccess.trade.gov . The Department will post a summary of the comments online and take them into consideration. The Department will not provide a formal opportunity for parties to comment on the Release 1 pilot participants' comments nor on the other parties' comments to the Proposed Rule. There is no such requirement in the rulemaking process. See 5 U.S.C. 553(c). As the Department continues to add enhancements and features to IA ACCESS, it will welcome parties' input on an ongoing basis.

The Department received the following technical comments based on the commenters' experiences during the pilot program: (1) The case name should be automatically populated by case number; segments should show up in drop-down menu; (2) the Department should expand the number of characters for document title and file name; (3) “document type” and “subject” options have not been appropriate to the filings, so “Other” was often selected; (4) the Department should refine the “document type” and “subject” options and provide the ability to customize by typing in words prior to or after the standard types/subjects; (5) the Department should provide an “approval” or confirmation screen prior to submission; and (6) one commenter wished to confirm that the Department personnel have the ability to review and print documents in color.

Response: The Department is considering these comments as it develops the IA ACCESS system. A summary of these comments in addition to others received at the conclusion of the Release 1 pilot program is available on the Department's IA ACCESS Web site at http://iaaccess.trade.gov under the “Help” link.

One commenter recommended the Department to establish a help line that has relevant personnel available after 5 p.m. Eastern Time to assist with electronic submissions.

Response: A help line will be available and staffed with relevant personnel between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days to assist submitters with any technical issues. We encourage parties to give themselves ample time prior to 5 p.m. on the due date to successfully complete submissions using IA ACCESS. Further, parties who cannot meet the 5 p.m. filing deadline should request an extension from the relevant personnel in the Office of Operations. Because personnel at the Help Line cannot grant such extensions, after-hours assistance should not be necessary.

One commenter stated that it understood that IA ACCESS will host only documents received after the launch of the electronic document system, and that the Department currently does not envision scanning older documents already in the Official File. Currently, the Department is destroying or in the process of destroying files from proceedings that have been terminated for five years or more. This destruction practice would appear inconsistent with the goal of expanding public access to information. If older documents are destroyed as a matter of course, then parties are at a disadvantage in preparing for ongoing proceedings because some documentation relied upon is only available in paper form. The commenter recommended that the Department reconsider its destruction practice and work towards making all existing paper documentation and submissions from prior proceedings available to the public as part of a docket for that proceeding.

Response: The Department's current document retention policy requires it to keep the Public File for five years after an order has closed. The Department plans to continue following this retention policy, which the Department believes makes the information sufficiently accessible to the public. The Department will not scan older documents into IA ACCESS that are already in the Official File. Doing so would be costly and an inefficient use of the Department's resources. Older files will continue to be available in the Public Reading Room in accordance with the Department's retention policy.

In the Proposed Rule, the Department stated that it was considering providing for the implementation of electronic APO release as part of the overall transition to IA ACCESS. The Department requested comments on the APO release process, the adequacy of providing for electronic release in the APO, and the necessity of additional security requirements in the APO application.

In response to the Department's request for comments, one commenter expressed its support for the Department's approach. Another commenter recommended a system whereby the lead attorney for service and any other designated authorized individuals will be notified via e-mail that a new document has been posted to a particular record and that the authorized user would be able to access the document by logging into the secure database to upload the document on the authorized user's secure server. The commenter also requested that the same release process apply to documents filed by parties or placed on the record by Department personnel, thereby effecting service via electronic notification. Another commenter stated that the Proposed Rule did not specify whether, in addition to APO release, the Department also plans public electronic release to authorized representatives of interested parties who have entered an appearance. The commenter encouraged the Department to adopt this practice, either as part of formal rulemaking or under its IA ACCESS procedures.

In addition to the electronic APO release process through IA ACCESS, the Department plans to release public Department-generated documents and public versions of Department-generated business proprietary documents using IA ACCESS. The Department plans to notify the lead attorney for service and any other designated authorized individuals via e-mail that a new document has been posted to a particular segment. The authorized individual would then be able to securely access the document.

The Department has not implemented a similar release process to effect service of documents filed by interested parties on one another. As discussed above, with the exception of service of APO applications in § 351.305(b)(2) and the requirement that parties serve the complete final business proprietary document when bracketing changes have been made in § 351.303(c)(2)(ii), the Department has not changed the service requirements in the regulations. However, parties may continue to consent to electronic service in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(ii) and continue to serve one another in accordance with this provision.

One commenter stated that it supports the Department's approach to electronic release under APO using the IA ACCESS system, but it urges the Department to impose conditions on such document releases, such as prohibiting access to another party's business proprietary information using file servers, networks and other electronic data storage and transmission devices located overseas or accessible to the public (such as computers in libraries and Internet cafes). The commenter stated that use of such systems would greatly increase the likelihood of unauthorized interception of and access to the business proprietary information of another party.

The commenter also encouraged the Department to retain the requirement that authorized applicants certify that they will “ensure that business proprietary information in an electronic format will not be accessible to parties not authorized to receive business proprietary information” in all future APOs. The commenter proposed requiring, as an additional safeguard, that all applicants for access to business proprietary information under an APO further specify (as part of their APO applications) each location from which they will access electronic documents containing business proprietary information of another interested party. According to the commenter, other interested parties should be permitted to comment on such applications and have their comments considered by the Department as part of its review of the APO application.

The Department is committed to securing the business proprietary information of parties participating in its proceedings. The Department has determined that it is not necessary for applicants for APO access to specify the location from which they will access electronic documents containing business proprietary information of another interested party. The Department already requires parties to use diligence in protecting other interested parties' business proprietary information and will continue to allow the firms to develop their own internal procedures to ensure that business proprietary information is downloaded in a secure manner. In addition, the Department will continue to address the improper release of business proprietary information through its sanctions proceedings at 19 CFR part 354.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the Proposed Rule and is not repeated here. The Department received no comments questioning or regarding this certification.

This rule does not contain a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Huvepharma AD, 33 James Boucher Blvd., Sophia 1407, Bulgaria, has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haitov Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600 to reflect this change.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is amended as follows:

Background

Section 939A(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (124 Stat. 1376 (2010)), (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), requires each Federal agency to review its regulations that require the use of an assessment of credit-worthiness of a security or money market instrument, and to review any references or requirements in those regulations regarding credit ratings. Section 939A(b) directs each agency to modify any regulation identified in the review required under section 939A(a) by removing any reference to, or requirement of reliance on, credit ratings and substituting a standard of credit-worthiness that the agency deems appropriate. Numerous provisions under the Code are affected.

These temporary regulations amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 150, 171, 197, 249, 475, 860G, and 1001 of the Code. These sections were added to the Code during different years to serve different purposes. These temporary regulations also amend the Manufacturers and Retailers Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 48) under section 4101 that provides registration requirements related to Federal fuel taxes.

These temporary regulations remove references to “credit ratings” and “credit agencies” or functionally similar terms in the existing regulations. Some changes involve simple word deletions or substitutions. Others reflect the revision of a sentence to remove the credit rating references. In some cases, multiple sentences have been modified. Where appropriate, substitute standards of credit-worthiness replace the prior references to credit ratings, credit agencies or functionally similar terms. Language revisions serve solely to remove the references prohibited by section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act and no additional changes are intended.

Section 1.150-1. Section 1.150-1 provides definitions for purposes of sections 103 and 141 through 150. Section 1.150-1(b) defines issuance costs to mean costs to the extent incurred in connection with, and allocable to, the issuance of an issue within the meaning of section 147(g). Section 1.150-1(b) lists as non-exclusive examples of issuance costs: Underwriters' spread; counsel fees; financial advisory fees; rating agency fees; trustee fees; paying agent fees; bond registrar, certification, and authentication fees; accounting fees; printing costs for bonds and offering documents; public approval process costs; engineering and feasibility study costs; guarantee fees, other than for qualified guarantees (as defined in § 1.148-4(f)); and similar costs. These temporary regulations replace the § 1.150-1(b) reference to rating agency fees with “fees paid to an organization to evaluate the credit quality of the issue.” No substantive change is intended.

Section 1.171-1. The temporary regulations change credit rating in § 1.171-1(f) Example 2 (i) to credit quality. The change does not affect the analysis in the example. In addition, the temporary regulations make other nonsubstantive changes to the example (for example, the dates in the example are updated).

Section 1.197-2(b)(7). The temporary regulations remove “the existence of a favorable credit rating” from the examples of supplier-based intangibles in the third sentence of § 1.197-2(b)(7). No substantive change in the treatment of a favorable credit rating as a supplier-based intangible under section 197 is intended.

Section 1.249-1. The temporary regulations change credit rating and ratings of credit rating services in § 1.249-1(e)(2)(ii) to credit quality and widely published financial information. In the existing regulations, a change in the credit rating of an issuer or obligation is one of the facts and circumstances used to determine how much of a repurchase premium is attributable to the cost of borrowing and not to the conversion feature of a convertible bond. Credit rating services is used as a means to determine the credit rating of an issuer or obligation. None of these changes affect the substantive rules in the existing regulations.

Section 1.475(a)-4(d)(4). Example 1, Example 2, and Example 3 in § 1.475(a)-4(d)(4) are revised to remove references to credit ratings or credit rating agencies. In these three examples in the existing regulations, credit rating or specific references to certain ratings by certain credit ratings agencies (such as AA/aa or AAA/aaa) were used to set up the factual scenario that illustrates the factors that go into the determination of whether it is appropriate for a dealer to take a credit risk adjustment. These terms were also used to describe the credit risk adjustment implicit in the yield curve used to discount the present value of the cash flows. This adjustment affects whether any additional credit risk adjustments are warranted. These examples also used credit rating agency to set up the factual scenario that a counterparty's credit-worthiness was based upon an industry standard of a certain credit quality and illustrates the factors that go into the determination of whether it is appropriate for a dealer to take a credit risk adjustment. The changes that have been made to the language of the examples do not alter the purpose of the illustrations and present the factual issues in a more generalized way.

Section 1.860G-2. Section 1.860G-2(g)(2) defines qualified reserve fund as an amount that is reasonably required to fund expenses of the REMIC or amounts due on regular or residual interests in the event of defaults on the underlying pool of mortgages. In defining the amount reasonably required, § 1.860G-2(g)(3)(ii) refers to the amount required by a nationally recognized independent rating agency as a condition of providing the rating for the REMIC interest desired by the sponsor. Because an alternative and fully adequate standard of reference is already set forth in these regulations, these temporary regulations remove the rating agency alternative standard.

Section 1.1001-3. Section 1.1001-3 provides rules for determining whether a modification of a debt instrument results in an exchange for purposes of § 1.1001-1(a). These temporary regulations remove the terms rating and credit rating from § 1.1001-3 and generally replace those terms with credit quality. Section 1.1001-3(d) Example 9 is revised so that the event that triggers an option to increase a note's rate of interest is a breach of certain covenants in the note, rather than a specific decline in the corporation's credit rating. The temporary regulations also revise § 1.1001-3(g) Example 5 so that the debt instrument described in the example allows a party to be substituted for the instrument's original obligor on the basis of the party's credit-worthiness, rather than the party's credit rating. The temporary regulations also revise § 1.1001-3(g) Example 8 to explain that a bank's letter of credit supporting a debt instrument is substituted for another bank's letter of credit when the first bank encounters financial difficulty, thus removing references to rating agencies and either bank's credit rating.

Section 48.4101-1(f)(4). Section 4101 requires certain persons to be registered by the IRS for purposes of several fuel tax provisions of the Code. Under § 48.4101-1, the IRS will register an applicant for registration only if, among other conditions, the applicant has adequate financial resources to pay its expected fuel tax liability. To make this determination, § 48.4101-1(f)(4)(ii)(B) instructs the IRS to look to the applicant's financial information. These temporary regulations remove the examples of the types of documents the IRS should review and instructs the IRS to look at all information relevant to the applicant's financial status.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the Special Analysis section in the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

These regulations were drafted by personnel in the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting), the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) and the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 48 are amended as follows:

OSHRC published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 24, 2011, 76 FR 30064, which would revise 29 CFR part 2205. Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through submission of written comments on the proposed rule. OSHRC received no public comments. We have reviewed the proposed rule and now adopt it as the agency's final rule.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires Federal agencies that develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology to “ensure, unless undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency,” that this technology allows (1) Federal employees who are individuals with disabilities “to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities,” and (2) members of the public who are individuals with disabilities and are “seeking information or services from a Federal department or agency to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.” 29 U.S.C. 794d(a)(1)(A). In the event that this requirement imposes an undue burden, Federal agencies must provide the relevant information and data using an “alternative means.” 29 U.S.C. 794(a)(1)(B). An administrative complaint filed for an alleged violation of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act must be filed with the agency “alleged to be in noncompliance,” and must be processed by the agency using “the complaint procedures established to implement” section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. 794d(f)(2). Therefore, OSHRC is amending its procedures in part 2205, which effectuates section 504, to also incorporate the requirements set forth in section 508.

Exercising its statutory authority under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a)(2), the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (“Access Board”) has issued standards for electronic and information technology, 36 CFR part 1194. These standards define electronic and information technology for purposes of section 508 and provide the technical and functional performance criteria necessary to implement the accessibility requirements specified above. As detailed below, in amending part 2205, OSHRC relies on the definitions and requirements set forth in the Access Board's standards.

Turning to the specific amendments, OSHRC is adding a sentence to § 2205.101 (“Purpose”) indicating that part 2205 effectuates section 508 and summarizing the purpose of that section. OSHRC also is adding a clause to § 2205.102 (“Application”) indicating that part 2205 applies to the agency's “development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technology,” and a new section at § 2205.135 (“Electronic and information technology requirements”) that thoroughly explains the agency's responsibilities under section 508. The additions are consistent with language used by the Access Board. 36 CFR 1194.1, .2. Additionally, in § 2205.103 (“Definitions”), OSHRC is (1) adding a definition describing the source material for section 508—a similar sentence already exists describing the source material for section 504; (2) adding the definitions of “Electronic and Information technology” and “Information technology” set forth by the Access Board, 39 CFR 1194.4; and (3) revising the definition of “Complete complaint” to indicate its coverage of violations alleged under section 508, as well as section 504. Further, OSHRC is adding language to § 2205.111 (“Notice”) to extend the notice requirements to section 508.

OSHRC also is revising the procedures in § 2205.170 (“Compliance procedures”) to provide more detailed instructions for filing and processing complaints and appeals alleging violations of section 504, and to incorporate instructions for those who allege violations of section 508. As noted, section 508 directs agencies to use the same procedures for processing section 508 complaints as they use for section 504 complaints. The EEOC, however, recently explained in its own notice of rulemaking that “[t]he part 1614 process is reserved for complaints alleging employment discrimination,” and that an allegation under section 508 of “discrimination in access to electronic and information technology * * * is outside the scope of part 1614.” Therefore, the revisions to § 2205.170(a) and (b) make clear that part 1614 is not applicable to section 508 complaints, but that OSHRC's procedures specifically set forth in its regulations are applicable to both section 504 and 508 complaints.

In addition to amendments resulting from section 508, OSHRC is making the following deletions, and corrections and amendments to part 2205. As to the deletions, several provisions include compliance deadlines that have already expired. Section 2205.110 requires that OSHRC complete, by August 24, 1987, a self-evaluation of policies and practices that do not or may not meet the requirements of the regulation. It further requires that a description of areas examined, problems identified, and modifications made be kept on file for at least three years. Also, paragraph (c) of § 2205.150 requires OSHRC to “comply with the obligations established under [paragraphs (a) and (b)] by October 21, 1986, except that where structural changes in facilities are undertaken, such changes shall be made by August 22, 1989, but in any event as expeditiously as possible”; and paragraph (d) of that provision requires OSHRC to “develop, by February 23, 1987, a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete [structural changes to facilities]” in the event that such changes are required. Because the latest of these given time frames has long passed, § 2205.110 and paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 2205.150 are deleted.

Also, the cross-references in several provisions are outdated. The fourth definition of “qualified handicapped person,” found at § 2205.103, cross-references 29 CFR 1613.702(f), and two other provisions—§§ 2205.140 and .170(b)—cross-reference 29 CFR part 1613. Part 1613, however, was superseded by part 1614 in 1992. Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, 57 FR 12634 (Apr. 10, 1992) (final rule). The current version of § 1614.203(b) cross-references and adopts all definitions in part 1630, and the definition of “qualified individual with a disability” is at 29 CFR 1630.2(m). Therefore, the cross-reference in § 2202.103 is changed to 29 CFR 1630.2(m), and the cross-reference to part 1613 in §§ 2205.140 and .170(b) is changed to part 1614. Further, § 2205.151 cross-references 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, which previously set forth the standard for the Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 4151-4157. In 2002, the regulatory provisions pertaining to the standard were re-designated as 41 CFR 102-76.60 to 102-76.95. Real Property Policies, 67 FR 76882 (Dec. 13, 2002) (final rule). Section 2205.151 is therefore amended to reflect this re-designation.

Additionally, only the acronym for “telecommunication devices for deaf persons” is now used in § 2205.160, as both the phrase and acronym already appear in § 2205.103; the head of the agency is now referred to as the “Chairman” throughout the part, as this term is used in the OSH Act itself, 29 U.S.C. 661(a); and, in § 2205.103, additional legislative history is added to the definition of “Section 504.” Finally, the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, Public Law 102-569, 106 Stat. 4344, which replaced the term “handicap” with the term “disability,” has resulted in the amendment of all such references in part 2205.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13132, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: OSHRC is an independent regulatory agency and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866, E.O. 13132, or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq .

Regulatory Flexibility Act: OSHRC certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that these rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it applies exclusively to a Federal agency and individuals accessing the services of a Federal agency. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: OSHRC has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply because these rules do not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of OMB.

Congressional Notification: These rules do not constitute a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter XX, Part 2205 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, is revised to read as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the following special local regulations at the following times:

This special local regulation will be enforced daily from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on July 7, 8, 9 and 10, 2011.

Regulations: (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 100.901, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This regulated area is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “designated on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The designated on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative to obtain permission.

(5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative.

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-2011-0614), 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 delivery, 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-2011-0614” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit 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 comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change 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-2011-0614” 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 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 waiting for a notice and comment period to be completed would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with a high speed boat race. In addition, rescheduling the race for the purpose of accommodating a comment period would mean that the race could not happen this summer. Not having this annual summer spectator event is contrary to the public interest of the people of Detroit. Furthermore, delaying this event to accommodate a comment period is unnecessary because of the non-controversial history of the regulation: When the Final Rule for this event was published in 2008 (Docket number USCG-2008-0220), no comments were received at all.

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 . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard from ensuring the safety of vessels and the public during a high speed boat race. In addition, rescheduling the race for the purpose of delaying the effective date would mean that the race could not happen this summer. Not having this annual summer spectator event is contrary to the public interest of the people of Detroit. Furthermore, delaying the effective date of this this Special Local Regulation is unnecessary because of the non-controversial history of the regulation: When the Final Rule for this event was published in 2008 (Docket number USCG-2008-0220), no comments were received at all.

This interim rule will amend the entry found in 33 CFR 100.918, Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit, MI. Currently, the regulations located at 33 CFR 100.918 state that the respective enforcement period will occur each year in the first or second week of June. However, the annual occurrence of this marine event has been pushed back from June to July.

Because of the aforementioned rescheduling of the annual Detroit APBA Gold Cup, the Captain of the Port Detroit finds it necessary to amend the respective enforcement period. Accordingly, this interim rule will amend the special local regulation found in 33 CFR 100.918 so that the new enforcement period will take place during the first or second week of July.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be periodic in nature, of short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the amendment of the enforcement period of this special local regulation.

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 would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI during an enforcement period in the first or second week in July each year.

The new enforcement period for this special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The enforcement period will be short in duration and will only occur once per year; the special local regulation has been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around its bounds whenever possible; and vessels will be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade, therefore (34)(h) of the Instruction applies. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing an NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by these events including powerboats traveling at high speeds, unexpected pyrotechnics detonation and burning debris. We spoke with each event sponsor and each indicated they were unable and unwilling to move their event date to a later time for the following reasons.

The sponsor for Salute to Veterans fireworks display (the Town of Hempstead) stated they are unwilling to reschedule their event to a later date because the town expended funds on advertising the current event date. Changing the date would require the town to spend more of their limited funds on advertising. The town was not aware of the requirements for submitting a recurring marine event application 60 days in advance resulting in a late notification to the Coast Guard. The town is now aware of this reporting requirement.

The sponsors for the town of Islip and Port Jefferson fireworks displays stated they are unwilling to reschedule their events because they are held in conjunction with the Fourth of July holiday and holiday festivities. Since announced, community members have made holiday plans based on these fireworks displays. Rescheduling these events would not be a viable option because most event venues, entertainers and venders have fully booked summer schedules making rescheduling nearly impossible. This year's fireworks displays were originally canceled due to lack of funding; however, funding became available late in May allowing the fireworks displays to take place. This unique funding situation which was unpredictable caused the late notification to the Coast Guard. The sponsors are aware of the requirements for submitting a recurring marine event application 60 days in advance.

The Sponsor for Battle on the Bay Powerboat Race is unwilling to reschedule the event because the powerboats that will be racing in the event are part of a traveling circuit with a schedule established more than a year ahead of time, the earliest opportunity to reschedule the event is 2012. In spring the event's host town for the past several years unexpectedly decided not to host this year's event. The event sponsor was surprised and rushed to find a new host town. After a month of meetings with towns and filing permits the sponsors made an agreement with a new town. When that agreement was reached the Coast Guard was provided less than 90 days notice an insufficient amount of time to publish an NPRM for a new event. This unique host town situation which was unpredictable caused the late notification to the Coast Guard. The sponsor is aware of the requirements for submitting a new marine event application 135 days in advance.

The sponsors for Xirinachs Family Foundation Fireworks; Icim's 40th Birthday Party Fireworks and Berman Wedding Fireworks are unwilling to move their events to a later date because they are held in conjunction with other events that cannot be moved. The sponsors were not aware of the requirements for submitting a marine event application 135 days in advance resulting in a late notification to the Coast Guard. The sponsors are now aware of the reporting requirements.

The sponsors for Riverfront US title Series Powerboat Race; Head of the Riverfront Regatta; Fairfield Aerial Fireworks; Town of Babylon Fireworks; East Hampton Fire Department Fireworks; Village of Island Park Fireworks and Ports Washington Sons of Italy Fireworks all submitted marine event applications with sufficient notice to the Coast Guard. These fireworks displays and marine events are all recurring with a proposed permanent rule currently in a public comment period under docket number USCG-2008-0384, titled: Special Local Regulations; Safety and Security Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone. The Coast Guard is establishing these temporary special local regulations and safety zones to provide for safety of life during this year's events. Additionally, the Coast Guard has ordered special local regulations or safety zones for all of these areas during past events and has received no public comments or concerns regarding the impact to waterway traffic from those events. For the same reasons, 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 . Delaying the effective date by first publishing a NPRM would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters during these scheduled events as immediate action is needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by these events including powerboats traveling at high speeds, unexpected pyrotechnics detonation and burning debris.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1226, 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory special local regulations and safety zones. This regulation carries out two related actions: (1) Establishing special local regulations, and (2) establishing safety zones. Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within the COTP Long Island Sound Zone. Based on accidents that have occurred in the past and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the COTP Long Island has determined that regattas and fireworks launches proximate to watercrafts pose significant risk to public safety and property.

To protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes temporary special local regulations or safety zones for the time and location of each marine event.

This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP, or designated representative.

This temporary rule establishes special local regulations for all navigable waters around each powerboat race and regatta and safety zones for all navigable waters within a 1000 foot zone around each fireworks display.

These events are listed below in the text of the regulation.

Because large numbers of spectator vessels are expected to congregate around the location of these events, these regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by them including powerboats traveling at high speeds, unexpected pyrotechnics detonation, and burning debris. During the enforcement periods, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the regulated areas unless stipulated otherwise or specifically authorized by the COTP or the designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas.

The Coast Guard determined that these regulated areas will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to their temporary nature, limited size, and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated areas.

The Coast Guard has published an NPRM proposing permanent regulated areas for each of these events. The NPRM can be viewed and comments can be submitted by following the procedure under ADDRESSES and typing in docket number USCG-2008-0384. Thus far we have received no comments or requests for a public meeting on the NPRM. Additionally, the Coast Guard has ordered special local regulations or safety zones for all of these areas during past events and has received no public comments or concerns regarding the impact to waterway traffic from those events.

Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

The Coast Guard determined that these regulated areas will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to their temporary nature, limited size, and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated areas. Additionally, The Coast Guard has ordered special local regulations or safety zones for all fourteen areas during past events and has received no public comments or concerns regarding impact to waterway traffic from events.

Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: the regulated areas will be of limited duration, they cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways, and the events are designed to avoid, to the extent possible, deep draft, fishing, and recreational boating traffic routes.

The Coast Guard has previously promulgated safety zones or special local regulations, in accordance with 33 CFR Parts 165 and 100, for all event areas contained within this proposed regulation and has not received notice of any negative impact caused by any of the safety zones or special local regulations.

No new or additional restrictions will be imposed on vessel traffic.

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 transit or anchor in the designated regulated area during the enforcement periods stated for each event list below in the regulatory text.

The temporary special local regulations and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the regulated areas will be of limited size and of short duration, and vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other portions of the waterways except for the areas designated as regulated areas. Additionally, before the effective period, notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events.

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 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)&(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of temporary special local regulations and safety zones.

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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT), who owns and operates this bascule type drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.237(c) to facilitate the inspection of the operational equipment within the structure.

The Walnut Street Bridge, at mile 2.8, across the Christina River in Wilmington, DE has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 13 feet above mean high water.

Under the regular operating schedule the bridge opens on signal as required by 117.237(c).

Under this temporary deviation, the Walnut Street Bridge will be closed to vessels and will require two hours advance notice to open each day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., on June 23, 2011 until July 1, 2011, and on July 18, 2011 until July 22, 2011. At all other times, the Walnut Street Bridge will open on signal.

Vessels that can pass under the closed span without an opening may do so at all times. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Christina River.

There are three vessels that travel through the bridge several times per week whose vertical clearance surpasses the closed bridge position, requiring an opening of the draw span. DELDOT has coordinated this replacement work with these three waterway users and the Coast Guard will inform the other users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. The bridge may be delayed when opening for an emergency during the proposed equipment inspections.

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 Wilmington Family YMCA, on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across Northeast Cape Fear River, at mile 1.0, both in Wilmington, NC, requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedules to accommodate the 29th Annual Wilmington Family YMCA Tri-Span race scheduled for July 9, 2011.

The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is a vertical-lift drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water in the closed position to vessels and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge is a double-leaf bascule drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 40 feet above mean high water in the closed position to vessels.

Under the regular operating schedules during the requested period for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge, the draws need not open for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year set out at 33 CFR 117.823 and at 33 CFR 117.829(a)(4), respectively.

Due to the extreme high temperatures expected for Saturday July 9, 2011 (the second Saturday of July 2011), the Wellness Director for the Wilmington Family YMCA requested to change the closure times to vessels for the aforementioned drawbridges from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. to 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridges will be closed to vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Saturday July 9, 2011.

Typical vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River includes a variety of vessels from freighters, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. Vessels that can pass under the bridges without a bridge opening may continue to do so at anytime.

The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users. The Coast Guard will use Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to inform all users of the waterways of the closure periods for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the draw 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.

On February 22, 2011, the Postal Service published the Federal Register proposed rule, Shortpaid and UnpaidInformation-Based Indicia (IBI) Postage and Shortpaid Express Mail Postage, Revised Proposal (76 FR 9702-9705). The Postal Service received four comments and gave them each consideration and will adopt the proposed rule with minor revisions.

One commenter raised concerns about the ability of customers who pay postage with IBI postage meters to use an existing account and/or payment method in lieu of a credit card to pay revenue deficiencies. At the present time, the Postal Service will not permit customers to use existing accounts and/or payment methods in lieu of credit cards to pay revenue deficiencies, but this may be a future consideration.

One commenter expressed concern regarding the Postal Service's proposal to use an electronic notification process to recover revenue deficiencies from customers using IBI postage meters. Only customers who pay postage with postage evidencing systems with e-mail addresses either on file with the Postal Service or with whom the Postal Service has an agreement and a process in place to obtain e-mail addresses will receive an electronic notification. If a customer's e-mail address is not available, the Postal Service will use other existing processes to recover revenue deficiencies.

One commenter asked for clarification of “other non-electronic processes” that will be used to identify shortpaid and unpaid postage. In the event that the new electronic processes are unavailable, the Postal Service will use existing methods to collect unpaid and shortpaid IBI postage. The Postal Service is making a minor change in the language to state, “In the event that electronic processes are unavailable, other existing processes may be used to recover revenue deficiency as required.”

One commenter asked for clarification regarding the procedures for remedying postage deficiencies generated from Click-N-Ship. The Postal Service is making a minor change to further clarify that the new automated procedures for detecting and recovering postage deficiencies apply to shortpaid and unpaid postage generated from Click-N-Ship. However, this does not preclude the use of existing processes to identify or recover postage deficiencies. For items with shortpaid IBI postage that is generated from Click-N-Ship, the Postal Service will continue to allow mailers to remit payments for such postage deficiencies via Click-N-Ship and follow the existing postage deficiency process.

With this final rule, the Postal Service implements new procedures to manage shortpaid Express Mail postage and a new process to detect mailpieces with shortpaid and unpaid IBI postage generated from the following postage evidencing systems: Click-N-Ship®, IBI postage meters, and PC Postage® products.

The Postal Service also implements a new USPS Web-based resolution process to remedy shortpaid and unpaid IBI postage payment deficiencies; a process to dispute shortpaid and unpaid IBI postage deficiency assessments; and a process to appeal USPS decisions relative to shortpaid and unpaid IBI postage. During this process, customers will be notified electronically of the postage deficiency and be provided a link to a specific USPS Web-based customer payment portal to resolve the shortage. In addition to this new process, the Postal Service will continue to use the existing postage deficiency payment process for shortpaid and unpaid postage generated by Click-N-Ship.

For an Express Mail Next Day, Second Day, Military, or Custom Designed Service item received at the origin office of mailing with insufficient postage, the mailer is contacted to correct the postage deficiency prior to dispatch of the Express Mail item. If the mailer cannot be contacted before dispatch from the origin office, or if the Express Mail item with insufficient postage is identified during processing operations or at the destination Post Office, the Express Mail item is endorsed “Postage Due”, marked to show the total deficiency of postage and fees, and then dispatched to the destination Post Office for delivery to the addressee upon payment of the deficiency.

If the addressee refuses to pay the postage due amount, the Express Mail item is endorsed “Return to Sender—Refused.” The postage deficiency is then collected when the Express Mail item is returned to the original sender. If the original sender chooses to remail the item, a new Express Mail label and new postage and fees must be affixed.

Postage meters, PC Postage products, and Click-N-Ship are collectively identified as “postage evidencing systems.” A postage evidencing system is a device or system of components a customer uses to print evidence that postage required for mailing has been paid.

Information-Based Indicia (IBI) are digitally generated indicia that include a two-dimensional barcode.

Revenue deficiency includes both shortpaid and unpaid postage which occurs when any mailpiece has less postage than required for the applicable price category and associated class, weight, shape, zone, and extra services.

Shortpaid postage is revenue deficiency for which the valid postage on a mailpiece is less than the amount due.

Unpaid postage is a revenue deficiency for which postage is deficient due to the lack of affixed postage or the use of counterfeited, replicated, duplicated, falsified, or otherwise modified postage.

When potential shortpaid or unpaid IBI postage is detected on a mailpiece, the Postal Service will subsequently verify the postage to ensure its validity and determine whether the amount is sufficient. When the IBI postage on a mailpiece is confirmed to be shortpaid or unpaid, the corrective measures outlined below will be taken to recover the applicable revenue deficiency.

In most cases, the Postal Service will electronically notify both the mailer and the postage evidencing system service provider of the revenue deficiency and deliver the mailpiece to the addressee. The electronic notification provides a link to the USPS® Web-based customer payment portal that will enable the mailer to pay or dispute the revenue deficiency. In the event that electronic means are unavailable, other existing processes may be used to recover revenue deficiencies as required.

Where applicable, the Postal Service will provide a resolution process that will be accessible through the USPS Web-based customer payment portal to enable mailers to pay, dispute or appeal revenue deficiencies for IBI postage generated from postage evidencing systems. These processes are outlined below.

The mailer has 14 days from the date that the Postal Service sends the revenue deficiency electronic notification to pay the deficiency. The payment process is as follows:

• During the 14-day resolution period, the mailer must remit the payment for the revenue deficiency by accessing the USPS Web-based customer payment portal or through an otherwise authorized Postal Service payment method as indicated in the electronic notification.

• After 14 days, if a mailer has not paid or taken action to dispute a revenue deficiency, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account.

• When an electronic notification sent to a mailer is undeliverable, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 14-day period.

• When a mailer's cumulative revenue deficiency continues to increase during the 14-day period, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 14-day period.

• If the mailer feels the revenue deficiency is in error, the mailer may dispute the revenue deficiency during this 14-day period.

The mailer has 14 days from the date the Postal Service sends the revenue deficiency electronic notification to dispute the deficiency. The Postal Service will also send an electronic notification of the approved (upheld) or denied dispute to the mailer. If the Postal Service upholds the mailer's dispute, then the mailer is required to take no further action. The dispute process is as follows:

• During this 14-day period, the mailer must take action to dispute the revenue deficiency by accessing the USPS Web-based customer payment portal or through an otherwise authorized Postal Service dispute method as indicated in the electronic notification.

• The mailer must provide information to substantiate that the postage affixed was valid and sufficient for the postage and service fees associated with the mailpiece.

• After 14 days, if a mailer has not taken action to pay or dispute a revenue deficiency, the Postal Service will notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account.

• When an electronic notification that is sent to a mailer is undeliverable, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 14-day period.

• When a mailer's cumulative revenue deficiency continues to increase during this 14-day period, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 14-day period.

When a dispute is denied, the mailer has 7 days from the date that the Postal Service sends the electronic notification of the denial to pay the revenue deficiency or to file an appeal. The mailer may pay the deficiency or appeal the decision by accessing the USPS Web-based customer payment portal or through an otherwise authorized Postal Service payment or appeal method as indicated in the electronic notification. The Postal Service will make a final decision regarding the appeal request. If the Postal Service upholds the mailer's appeal, the Postal Service will notify the mailer of the decision, and the mailer is required to take no further action. The appeal process is as follows:

• The appeal process requires that the mailer provide additional evidence to substantiate that the postage affixed was valid and sufficient for the postage and service fees associated with the mailpiece.

• After 7 days, if a mailer has not taken action to pay or appeal the revenue deficiency denied in the dispute request, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account.

• When an electronic notification that is sent to a mailer is undeliverable, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 7-day period.

• When a mailer's cumulative revenue deficiency continues to increase during this 7-day period, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to temporarily suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 7-day period.

When the Postal Service denies the appeal request, the mailer will be notified of the decision. The mailer must then pay the revenue deficiency, within 7 days from the date that of the electronic notification of appeal denial, by accessing the USPS Web-based customer payment portal or through an otherwise authorized Postal Service payment method as indicated in the electronic notification. The process for denied appeals is as follows:

• If a mailer has not taken action to pay the revenue deficiency within 7 days, the Postal Service notifies the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to suspend the mailer's account.

• If the electronic notification to a mailer is undeliverable, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 7-day period.

• If a mailer's cumulative revenue deficiency continues to increase during this 7-day period, the Postal Service may notify the mailer's postage evidencing system service provider to suspend the mailer's account prior to the end of the 7-day period.

When a mailer fails to meet the standards, submits false or incomplete information, or deposits shortpaid and unpaid mailpieces in the mailstream, the Postal Service may deny a mailer use of a postage evidencing system.

Any mailer who deposits mailpieces with shortpaid or unpaid IBI postage or fees may be subject to some or all of the following proposed actions:

• Collection of the shortpaid or unpaid postage.

• Revocation of the mailer's account privileges.

• Civil and criminal fines and penalties pursuant to existing Federal law.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

On August 25, 2010, EPA determined that the submittals for ICAPCD Rule 424, KCAPCD Rule 410.1A, and VCAPCD Rule 74.2 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved an earlier version of ICAPCD Rule 424 into the SIP on 01/04/07 (72 FR 267). We approved an earlier version of KCAPCD Rule 410.1 into the SIP on 02/06/98 (63 FR 6073). We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 74.2 into the SIP on 01/02/04 (69 FR 34).

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. ICAPCD Rule 424, KCAPCD Rule 410.1A, and VCAPCD Rule 74.2 all impose more stringent requirements on VOC emissions from architectural coating operations. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The ICAPCD (moderate) and VCAPCD (serious) regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so these areas must implement RACT. KCAPCD (non-attainment subpart 1) does not need to fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

3. National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR part 59 Subpart D, 9/11/98).

4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations (EPA-450/2-76-028, 11/76).

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluations.

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by August 5, 2011, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 6, 2011. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

Regulations governing the butterfish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require specifications for maximum sustainable yield, initial optimum yield, allowable biological catch, domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing, joint venture processing, and total allowable levels of foreign fishing for the species managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The procedures for setting the annual initial specifications are described in § 648.21. The 2011 specification of DAH for butterfish is 495 mt (76 FR 8306, February 14, 2011).

Section 648.22 requires NMFS to close the directed butterfish fishery in the EEZ when 80 percent of the total annual DAH has been harvested. If 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is projected to be landed prior to October 1, a 250-lb (0.11-mt) incidental butterfish possession limit is put in effect for the remainder of the year, and if 80 percent of the butterfish DAH is projected to be landed on or after October 1, a 600-lb (0.27-mt) incidental butterfish possession limit is put in effect for the remainder of the year. NMFS is further required to notify, in advance of the closure, the Executive Directors of the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; mail notification of the closure to all holders of butterfish permits at least 72 hr before the effective date of the closure; provide adequate notice of the closure to recreational participants in the fishery; and publish notification of the closure in the Federal Register .

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, based on dealer reports and other available information, has determined that 80 percent of the DAH for butterfish in 2011 fishing year will be harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, July 6, 2011, the directed fishery for the butterfish fishery is closed and vessels issued Federal permits for butterfish may not retain or land more than 250 lb (0.11 mt) of butterfish per trip or calendar day. The directed fishery will reopen effective 0001 hours, January 1, 2012, when the 2012 DAH becomes available.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the butterfish fishery until January 1, 2012, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.21 require such action to ensure that butterfish vessels do not exceed the 2011 DAH. Data indicating the butterfish fleet will have landed at least 80 percent of the 2011 DAH have only recently become available. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.