1. History of MSPB's E-Filing Initiative

On February 26, 2008, MSPB issued final regulations at 5 CFR parts 1201, 1203, 1208, and 1209 governing e-filing. 73 FR 10127. Under those regulations, virtually any type of pleading can be filed electronically via MSPB's electronic filing application—e-Appeal Online. This includes the initial original appeal in matters within the Board's original and appellate jurisdiction, as well as all subsequent pleadings by the parties in such appeals. In addition to the pleadings on the merits of these appeals, e-Appeal Online can be used in subsidiary or addendum proceedings, including petitions for enforcement, motions for attorney fee awards, motions for compensatory or consequential damages, designations of representation, and notices of changes to contact information. 73 FR 10129; 5 CFR 1201.14(b). These regulations require parties and representatives who elect to e-file to follow the instructions for e-filing at MSPB's e-Appeal Online ( https://e-appeal.mspb.gov ). 5 CFR 1201.14(d).

E-Appeal Online is more than an application for sending and receiving pleadings in electronic form; it comprises an electronic case file of all relevant electronic documents relating to a particular appeal. This includes an online Repository of all documents issued by MSPB in a particular case, such as notices, orders, decisions, and other documents issued by MSPB to the parties, as well as pleadings filed via e-Appeal Online. Also available in the online Repository are pleadings filed at the petition for review stage of adjudication, even if filed in paper form, and some pleadings filed at the regional office level. The Repository also includes an electronic “docket sheet” that lists all documents issued by MSPB to the parties, as well as all pleadings filed by the parties, including those pleadings that are not available for viewing and downloading in electronic form. Access to appeal documents at the Repository is limited to the parties and representatives of the appeals in which they were filed.

Generally, pleadings added to the Repository are full-text searchable, including printed materials that have been converted to electronic format by scanning. This is accomplished using optical character recognition software that converts image-only electronic formats into an image-plus-text electronic format. Making case-related documents full-text searchable makes it easier for both the parties to MSPB proceedings and MSPB itself to search case files for pertinent materials.

Although e-Appeal Online has been valuable to both MSPB and its customers, some benefits can only be realized when the entire case file is available in electronic form. If only one party is e-filing, only part of the case file will generally be available to MSPB and to the parties in an appeal in electronic form. In these circumstances, both MSPB employees and the parties need access to the paper case file in order to have access to the entire record. If the entire case file were available in electronic form, neither MSPB employees nor the parties and their representatives would need to have access to the paper case file in order to do their jobs. If e-filing were mandatory for agencies and attorneys who represent appellants, scanning the remaining paper pleadings of pro se appellants who have not taken advantage of e-filing will become manageable, and the Board and the parties would be able to realize the benefits of fully electronic case files.

In the February 26, 2008 Federal Register notice, MSPB announced that it was giving serious consideration to mandating e-filing for agencies and attorneys who represent appellants in MSPB proceedings, and MSPB welcomed comments on this issue. 73 FR 10127-28.

In response to the February 26, 2008, announcement in the Federal Register about the possibility of mandatory e-filing for agencies and attorneys, MSPB received only one comment. The commenter acknowledged the advantages of such a rule, but identified two disadvantages: (1) Agencies would have to upgrade their equipment to accommodate the scanning of lengthy documents, and (2) when pro se appellants do not elect to e-file, agencies would have the additional burden of preparing and submitting documents in two formats, i.e., electronic and paper. E-Mail of March 25, 2008. We have considered the comment.

As to the equipment required, we recognize that some federal agency offices may not be well-equipped to produce and upload agency files as electronic documents. However, in light of the ever-increasing affordability of high-quality scanners and related software, we believe the number of offices that would be adversely affected by such a rule would be relatively small. We note also that e-filing is already mandatory in many state and federal courts. Nevertheless, this Interim Rule takes the commenter's concern into account and provides for exemptions in appropriate circumstances.

As to the commenter's concerns about the extra work that would be entailed when appellants do not e-file, we believe those concerns are overstated. In that event, it is true that a paper copy of the agency file would have to be printed and mailed. It is not the case, however, that all of the extra work traditionally involved in assembling an agency file would still need to be done. A party that e-files a pleading that contains three or more attachments must describe and bookmark the attachments so that each attachment is listed in a table of contents and bookmarked in the electronic version. 5 CFR 1201.14(g)(3). In the assembled pleading, the table of contents will list each attachment and the page number on which it starts. This pleading can be printed and mailed as is; there would be no need for the agency to place physical tabs on the attachments, or to manually create a separate table of contents. Thus, even when the appellant is not an e-filer, we do not see a significant increase in the time required to assemble and serve the agency file. When all parties are e-filing, we believe that there will be a net savings of time associated with creating and serving the agency file electronically.

Although the MSPB announced that it was considering making e-filing mandatory for all agencies and attorneys appearing before the MSPB, this interim rule affects only parties appearing before the WRO and the DEFO. Except for pleadings filed with WRO and DEFO, whether to participate in Board proceedings as an e-filer will continue to be voluntary. We note, however, that should the pilot program in WRO and DEFO prove to be successful, the Board would consider proposing a final agency-wide rule that would make e-filing mandatory for agencies and attorneys who represent appellants.

To provide time for agencies to comply with this rule, we are setting the effective date of this new rule 90 days in the future, on January 11, 2012. This new rule will apply only to appeals filed on or after January 11, 2012.

Accordingly, MSPB amends 5 CFR part 1201 as set forth below:

The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.

Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.

The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, is permanently surrendered or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published in the Federal Register . Accordingly, this document sets forth the revised Appendices for the 2011 tariff-rate quota year.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 6 is amended as follows:

The NRC is issuing a new guide in the agency's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

RG 1.221 was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1247. This regulatory guide provides licensees and applicants with new guidance that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for use in selecting the design-basis hurricane and design-basis hurricane-generated missiles that a nuclear power plant should be designed to withstand to prevent undue risk to the health and safety of the public. This guidance applies to the contiguous United States but does not address the determination of the design-basis hurricane and hurricane missiles for sites located along the Pacific coast or in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico; the NRC will evaluate such determinations on a case-by-case basis. This guide also does not identify the specific structures, systems, and components that should be designed to withstand the effects of the design-basis hurricane or should be protected from hurricane-generated missiles and remain functional. Nor does this guide address other externally generated hazards, such as aviation crashes, nearby accidental explosions resulting in blast overpressure levels and explosion-borne debris and missiles, and turbine missiles.

In August 2010, DG-1247 was published with a public comment period of 60 days from the issuance of the guide. The public comment period closed on November 5, 2010. Electronic copies of Regulatory Guide 1.221 are available through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ and through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , under Accession No. ML110940300. The regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML110940303. Staff's responses to public comments on DG-1247 are available under ML110940334.

This direct final rule contains several conforming amendments to SBA regulations resulting from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBJA), Public Law 111-240, which was enacted on September 27, 2010, SBA is making these regulatory amendments and other technical conforming changes to mirror current statutory provisions and avoid public confusion or possible misinterpretations of SBA's programs. Since these are conforming amendments, with no extraneous interpretation or other expanded materials, SBA expects no significant adverse comments. Based on that fact, SBA has decided to proceed with a direct final rule giving the public 30 days to comment. If SBA receives a significant adverse comment during the comment period, SBA will withdraw the sections of the rule receiving the significant adverse comment, and publish them in a proposed rule.

To minimize confusion to the reader, the Supplementary Information section is organized by sequential order of SBJA sections, followed by the additional changes that are not directly related to the SBJA amendments but are necessary for accuracy and consistency with the Small Business Act.

Section 1111 of the SBJA temporarily increased the maximum guarantee percentages for 7(a) business loans until January 1, 2011. These temporary changes do not need to be reflected in the regulations. Section 1111 also permanently increased the maximum guaranteed portion and maximum loan amount for 7(a) business loans. As a result of this change, section 7(a)(3) of the Small Business Act now reads: “No loan shall be made under this subsection—(A) if the total amount outstanding and committed (by participation or otherwise) to the borrower from the business loan and investment fund established by this Act would exceed $3,750,000 (or if the gross loan amount would exceed $5,000,000), except as provided for international trade loans, which have a different limit.” 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(3)(A). SBA is conforming three SBA regulations to this statutory change as follows: (1) § 120.151, What is the statutory limit for total loans to a Borrower?, to reflect that the maximum guaranteed amount is now $3,750,000 and the maximum loan amount is $5,000,000; (2) § 120.210, What percentage of a loan may SBA guarantee?, to remove an outdated effective date of the maximum guaranty percentages; and (3) § 120.390, Revolving Credit, to reflect that the maximum guarantee and loan amount are the same under CapLines as other 7(a) business loans and to include a cross reference to § 120.151.

Section 1112 of the SBJA amended several maximum loan amounts for the Certified Development Company Program (also known as the 504 Program). Due to these amendments, the Small Business Investment Act provision now reads: “(A) In General. Loans made by the Administration under this section shall be limited to—(i) $5,000,000 for each small business concern if the loan proceeds will not be directed toward a goal or project described in clause (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v); (ii) $5,000,000 for each small business concern if the loan proceeds will be directed toward 1 or more of the public policy goals described under section 501(d)(3); (iii) $5,500,000 for each project of a small manufacturer; (iv) $5,500,000 for each project that reduces the borrower's energy consumption by at least 10 percent; and (v) $5,500,000 for each project that generates renewable energy or renewable fuels, such as biodiesel or ethanol production.” 15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)(i-v). With respect to (iii) above, a small manufacturer, as defined in the Small Business Act, must have all of its production facilities located in the United States. 15 U.S.C. 696(2)(B). SBA is conforming § 120.931, 504 Loan Limits, to this statutory change, which substantially increases the loan limits for all 504 Program loans.

In implementing the loan limit for renewable energy or renewable fuels projects, SBA noted that 15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)(v) was enacted at the same time as 15 U.S.C. 695(d)(3)(K), which describes one of the public policy objectives of the 504 Program as projects that achieve “plant, equipment and process upgrades of renewable energy sources such as the small-scale production of energy for individual buildings or communities consumption, commonly known as micropower, or renewable fuels producers including biodiesel and ethanol producers.” It is SBA's view that the loan limit set by 15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)(v) was intended by Congress to accord with the corresponding public policy goal set forth in 15 U.S.C. 695(d)(3)(K). Accordingly, the regulatory provision implementing the loan limit for renewable energy or renewable fuels incorporates the parameters of the more fully articulated public policy goal.

Section 1113 of the SBJA amended the maximum loan limits for the Microloan Program by raising the amount of a loan that a Microloan Intermediary can make to a borrower from $35,000 to $50,000, as well as the amount of a loan that the Microloan Intermediary can receive from the SBA from $3,500,000 to $5,000,000. SBA is revising seven of its regulations to conform to these statutory changes: (1) § 120.2, Description of the Business Loan Programs; (2) § 120.10, Definitions; (3) § 120.701, Definitions; (4) § 120.702, Are there limitations on who can be an Intermediary or on where an Intermediary may operate?; (5) § 120.706, What are the terms and conditions of an SBA loan to an Intermediary?; (6) § 120.707, What conditions apply to loans by Intermediaries to Microloan borrowers?; and (7) § 120.714, How are grants made to non-lending technical assistance providers (NTAP)?.

In addition, SBA is making one technical change to the regulations governing eligibility for grants to Microloan Intermediaries. The second sentence of paragraph (b)(2) of § 120.712 states: “Intermediaries may not enter into third party contracts for the provision of technical assistance to program clients.” This language is inconsistent with paragraph (e) of that section, which states: “An Intermediary may use no more than 25 percent of the grant funds it receives from SBA for contracts with third parties for the latter to provide technical assistance to Microloan borrowers.” Paragraph (e), which was added to § 120.712 in 2001 to implement statutory changes, reflects current SBA policy to allow Intermediaries to use up to 25 percent of grant funds for contracts with third parties. Therefore, SBA is removing the inconsistent sentence in paragraph (b)(2).

Section 1115 of the SBJA provides that “except to the extent approved by the Administrator, a covered New Markets Venture Capital Company may not acquire or issue commitments for securities under this title for any single enterprise in an aggregate amount equal to more than 10 percent of the sum of—(A) the regulatory capital of the covered New Markets Venture Capital Company; and (B) the total amount of leverage projected in the participation agreement of the covered New Markets Venture Capital.” 15 U.S.C. 689. The SBJA defines the term “covered New Markets Venture Capital Company” as a company granted approval by the SBA Administrator on or after March 1, 2002, that has obtained financing from the Administrator. We are conforming the regulation to this statutory change by amending current SBA regulation, § 108.740, Portfolio Diversification (“overline” limitation). Based on the leverage ratio currently applicable in the New Markets Venture Capital (NMVC) program, the SBJA effectively increased the overline limit for existing NMVC companies from 20% to 25% of regulatory capital, which will allow these companies to invest a higher percentage of their capital in a single company or group of affiliated companies. SBA intends that an NMVC company's calculation of an overline limitation will retain the same adjustments to regulatory capital that are present in the current NMVC program regulations.

Section 1117 of the SBJA amends SBA's 7(a) loan program secondary market authority by providing: “If the amount of the guaranteed portion of any loan under section 7(a) is more than $500,000, the Administrator shall, upon request of a pool assembler, divide the loan guarantee into increments of $500,000 and 1 increment of any remaining amount less than $500,000, in order to permit the maximum amount of any loan in a pool to be not more than $500,000. Only 1 increment of any loan guarantee divided under this paragraph may be included in the same pool. Increments of loan guarantees to different borrowers that are divided under this paragraph may be included in the same pool.” 15 U.S.C. 634(g)(6). SBA is revising three regulations to conform to this statutory change: § 120.600(a), Definitions; § 120.601, SBA Secondary Market; and § 120.611, Pools backing Pool Certificates. The purpose of this statutory provision is to allow participants in the secondary market, specifically pool assemblers, to split the guaranteed portion of individual 7(a) loans into increments of $500,000 and one increment of less than $500,000. SBA is in the process of revising SBA Forms 1086 and 1088, as well as the form of Individual Certificate, to reflect this new provision.

Section 1119 of the SBJA extends the authorization for the SBA Secondary Market Guarantee Program for First Lien Position 504 Loan Pools from February 17, 2011 to the date “two years after the date of the first sale of a pool of first lien 504 loans guaranteed under this section to a third-party investor”. The new expiration date is, therefore, September 23, 2012. We are conforming one SBA regulation to this statutory change: § 120.1701, Program purpose.

Section 1132 of the SBJA adds a new public policy goal for the Certified Development Company Program. The new public policy goal is “reduction of rates of unemployment in labor surplus areas, as such areas are determined by the Secretary of Labor.” 15 U.S.C. 695(d)(3)(L). We are conforming one regulation to this statutory change: § 120.862, Other economic development objectives. This means that a project meeting this new public policy goal objective can qualify for a 504 loan in an amount up to $5,000,000. It also means that the project can be financed by the 504 loan even if the subject project does not create or retain jobs pursuant to § 120.861 provided that the CDC's overall portfolio, including the subject loan, meets or exceeds the CDC's required Job Opportunity average.

Section 1206 of the SBJA made changes to SBA's International Trade, Export Working Capital, and Export Express Loan Programs. This direct final rule addresses the changes made by Section 1206 to these programs, except for the Export Express Loan Program, which will be the subject of a separate rulemaking incorporating the now permanent Export Express Loan Program in the regulations for the first time. SBA's International Trade Loan Program was amended by changing the maximum loan amount, so that the provision now reads: “No loan shall be made under this subsection—(B) if the total amount outstanding and committed (on a deferred basis) solely for the purposes provided in paragraph (16) to the borrower from the business loan and investment fund established by this Act would exceed $4,500,000 (or if the gross loan amount would exceed $5,000,000), of which not more than $4,000,000 may be used for working capital, supplies or financings under § 7(a)(14) for export purposes.” 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(3)(B). Section 1206 also added a provision: “Participation in International Trade Loan—In an agreement to participate in a loan on a deferred basis under paragraph (16), the participation by the Administration may not exceed 90 percent.” 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(2)(E). The International Trade Loan Program also was amended to allow such loans to be used to assist concerns engaged in or adversely affected by international trade to improve their competitive position “by providing working capital” and to expand the use of loan proceeds for refinancing to “include any debt that qualifies for refinancing under any other provision of this subsection.” 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(A)(ii-iii). The collateral required to be provided by borrowers of International Trade Loans was also changed. The law now allows for such loans to “be secured by a second lien on the property or equipment financed by the loan or on other assets of the small business concern, if the Administrator determines the lien provides adequate assurance of the payment of the loan.” 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(B)(ii). SBA is amending four existing regulations for the International Trade Loan program and adding one new regulation to reflect these statutory changes: (1) § 120.346, Eligiblity, to delete restrictive language regarding the use of IT loan proceeds that is no longer applicable; (2) § 120.347, Use of Proceeds, to reflect that IT loan proceeds may now be used for working capital and to refinance additional debt; (3) § 120.348, Amount of Loan and Guarantee, to reflect the new maximum loan amount and the new maximum guaranty amount for IT loans; and (4) new § 120.349, Collateral, to reflect the new collateral requirements for IT loans.

Finally, section 1206 of the SBJA amended The Export Working Capital (EWCP) Loan Program by increasing the maximum loan amount to $5,000,000 (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(14)(B)(i)) and by providing that the guaranty amount for EWCP loans shall be 90 percent (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(2)(D)). SBA is conforming § 120.340, What is the Export Working Capital Program?, to reflect the new maximum loan amount and the new required guaranty amount for EWCP loans. Additionally, SBA is conforming § 120.130, Restrictions on uses of proceeds, to reflect that SBA has statutory authority to allow EWCP loan proceeds to be used for revolving lines of credit for export purposes. 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(14)(A).

Section 1312(a) of the SBJA provides that: “Rationale for Contract Bundling—Not later than 30 days after the date on which the head of a Federal agency submits data certifications to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the head of the Federal agency shall publish on the Web site of the Federal agency a list and rationale for any bundled contract for which the Federal agency solicited bids or that was awarded by the Federal agency.” 15 U.S.C. 644(q)(2)(B). SBA is conforming one regulation to this statutory change: § 125.2, Prime Contracting Assistance. The purpose of this statutory provision is to help reduce the practice of contract bundling. Requiring agencies to post a list of all bundled acquisitions and the rationale for bundling the acquisition holds the agency accountable to the public for its actions.

Section 1501 of the SBJA provides SBA new authority to make certain types of disaster loans to aquaculture enterprises. Prior to this statutory change, aquaculture enterprises were ineligible for all SBA disaster loans. Section 1501 provides that SBA may provide economic injury disaster loans to aquaculture enterprises that are small businesses. SBA is conforming one regulation to this statutory change: § 123.300, Is my business eligible to apply for an economic injury disaster loan?

In addition to the SBJA amendments, SBA believes that additional changes should be made to the business loan program regulations in § 120.220, Fees that Lender Pays SBA, to conform to the statutory provisions in section 7(a)(18)(A) and section 7(a)(23)(A) of the Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(18)(A) and (23)(A). First, with respect to the guarantee fees authorized by section 7(a)(18(A)(i) through (iii), SBA is amending the regulations at § 120.220(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) to accurately reflect the limitations provided in the Small Business Act. The statutory subsections authorize the collection of guarantee fees in amounts not to exceed certain percentages of the guaranteed portion of the loan. The regulations, however, do not reflect the degree of flexibility provided in the statute; rather the regulations state that the fees are fixed at the percentages listed. Specifically, for loans that are $150,000 or less, section 7(a)(18)(a)(i) will now require the lender to pay a guarantee fee “not to exceed 2 percent” of the guaranteed portion of the loan. Similarly, section 7(a)(18)(A)(ii) will now require lenders to pay a guarantee fee “not to exceed 3 percent” of the guaranteed portion of a loan that is more than $150,000, but not more than $700,000. Finally, under section 7(a)(18)(A)(iii) the guarantee fee to be paid by the lender is “not to exceed 3.5 percent” of the guaranteed portion of a loan that is more than $700,000.

SBA is also amending § 120.220(a)(1) to add the guarantee fee authorized by section 7(a)(18)(A)(1)(iv). This subsection provides that in addition to the fee payable under section 7(a)(18)(A)(iii), SBA must collect a “guarantee fee equal to 0.25 percent of any portion of the deferred participation share that is more than $1,000,000.” This particular guarantee fee is currently being assessed on the applicable loans consistent with the statutory authority but was not previously codified in the regulations.

SBA is also amending § 120.220(f)(1) to accurately reflect the amount of the annual service fee that is authorized by section 7(a)(23)(A) of the Small Business Act. This statutory provision states in part that SBA “shall assess, collect and retain a fee not to exceed 0.55 percent per year of the outstanding participation balance of the deferred participation share of the loan * * *.” However, the regulations state that this annual service fee must be equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of the guaranteed portion of each loan. The amendment in this rule will bring the regulations into conformity with the statutory authority, and obviate possible misunderstanding and confusion regarding the amount that is due annually on the service fee.

For Fiscal Year 2012, the fees authorized by § 120.220(a)(1) and § 120.220(f) are set at the maximum authorized levels. SBA will issue notices to announce any changes in these fees in the future.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This direct final rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

For the purposes of Executive Order 13132, this direct final rule will not have substantial, direct effects 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. Therefore, SBA has determined that this direct final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

SBA has determined that this direct final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, including small businesses. According to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule, the agency must prepare an analysis to determine whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule only makes conforming amendments to SBA regulations to reflect recent legislation, and does not implement new agency policies. Some of these amendments will affect small entities; however SBA certifies that these amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Small Business Administration amends 13 CFR parts 108, 120, 123, and 125 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 to do so would be contrary to public interest due to insufficient time in which to publish an NPRM since the Dredge Vessels Patriot and Liberty would have started their operations on the Columbia and Willamette Rivers by the time the notice could be published and comments taken.

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 . Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to safeguard the Dredge Vessels Patriot and Liberty from sabotage, other subversive acts, or accidents, and otherwise protect these vessels.

The Dredge Vessels Patriot and Liberty will be conducting operations at Columbia River Mile 105 and Willamette River Mile 2. This temporary security zone is necessary to help ensure the security of these vessels while conducting dredging operations. This will be done by prohibiting all persons or vessels from operating near the vessels while they are located in the Columbia or Willamette Rivers.

This rule establishes a temporary security zone around the Dredge Vessels Patriot and Liberty while they are anchored, underway, or conducting dredging operations. The security zone encompasses all waters within 200 yards around the vessels. No person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Columbia River or his designated representative.

The security zone will be in effect while the Dredge Vessels are operating in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers between approximately 7 a.m. on October 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011.

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, 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 has made this determination based on the fact that the security zone is limited in duration and maritime traffic will be able to transit around the zones.

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 may affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the area covered by the security zone created by this rule. The security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because maritime traffic will be able to transit around the zone and therefore any interruption to navigation is minimal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On February 24, 2010, at 75 FR 8246, EPA approved amendments to 326 IAC 8 into the Indiana SIP to address VOC RACT requirements for the Lake and Porter County portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN, 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. These amendments added limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating operations, consistent with EPA's 2008 Control Technique Guideline document for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating operations. The State's intention was to cover operations located only in Lake and Porter Counties, with the limits specified in Subsection 326 IAC 8-2-9(d). However, the applicability section, 326 IAC 8-2-9(a) did not clearly state that only Lake and Porter County sources were subject to the additional requirements.

In its November 24, 2010, submittal to EPA, IDEM requested that EPA approve amendments to 326 IAC 8-2-1 and 326 IAC 8-2-9 into the state SIP. Specifically, IDEM requested that we approve amendments to the applicability provisions in 326 IAC 8-2-9(a) to clarify that the new VOC limits in subsection (d) apply only to miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating operations in Lake and Porter Counties. IDEM also requested that we approve amendments to the general applicability provisions at 326 IAC 8-2-1(a)(3) and 326 IAC 8-2-1(a)(4) to clarify that the older (in Indiana's SIP prior to February 24, 2010) surface coating requirements in 326 IAC 8-2 continue to apply to miscellaneous metal coating operations outside of Lake and Porter Counties. The revised rules were adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on September 1, 2010, and became effective on November 19, 2010. No public comments were received at the hearing held by the state on September 1, 2010.

EPA is approving the state's request to amend the general applicability provisions at 326 IAC 8-2-1(a)(3) and (a)(4) and the applicability provisions in 326 IAC 8-2-9(a).

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 12, 2011 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 14, 2011. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. 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. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 12, 2011.

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The content of this preamble is listed in the following outline:

If this rule becomes effective, the conformity grace period in applicable areas will end on March 2, 2013, after which MOVES2010a is required to be used for new regional conformity analyses.

Copies of the official version of the MOVES2010a motor vehicle emissions model, along with user guides and supporting documentation, are available on EPA's MOVES Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.

Guidance on how to apply MOVES2010a for SIPs and transportation conformity purposes, including “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (EPA-420-B-09-046, December 2009) and “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity” (EPA-420-B-10-023, April 2010) can be found on the EPA's transportation conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm.

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This rule makes a one-time, minor revision to the transportation conformity rule to provide administrative relief requested by state and local agencies for certain nonattainment and maintenance areas. As described more fully below, there are significant technical differences between MOVES2010a and the previous emissions model, and affected state and local agencies require additional time beyond the two-year grace period provided by 40 CFR 93.111(b) to make the conformity transition to MOVES2010a successfully. Today's action is based on the circumstances unique to this transition, and does not change the grace period provisions applicable to future models. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to extend the MOVES2010a regional conformity grace period if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Entities potentially regulated by the transportation conformity rule are those that adopt, approve, or fund transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), or projects under title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Regulated categories and entities affected by today's action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this direct final rule. This table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be regulated by the transportation conformity rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability requirements in 40 CFR 93.102. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0393. You can get a paper copy of this Federal Register document, as well as the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action at the official public docket. See the ADDRESSES section for its location.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through EPA's transportation conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm. You may also access this document electronically under the Federal Register listings at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the official public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the electronic public docket. Information claimed as CBI and other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute is not available for public viewing in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in the electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.

To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in the electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in the electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in the ADDRESSES section. EPA intends to provide electronic access in the future to all of the publicly available docket materials through the electronic public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to the electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in the electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in the electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

For additional information about the electronic public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and federally supported highway and transit projects are consistent with the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or required interim milestones.

Transportation conformity (hereafter, “conformity”) applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those areas redesignated to attainment after 1990 (“maintenance areas”) for transportation-related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ), 1 carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP. EPA first promulgated the conformity rule on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and subsequently published several other amendments. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is EPA's Federal partner in implementing the conformity regulation. EPA has coordinated with DOT, and they concur with this direct final rule.

The Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator model (MOVES) is EPA's state-of-the-art model for estimating emissions from highway vehicles, based on analyses of millions of emission test results and considerable advances in the Agency's understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES is currently EPA's official emissions model for state and local agencies to estimate volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), PM, CO, and other precursors from cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles for SIP purposes and conformity determinations outside of California. MOVES' database-centered design allows EPA to update emissions data more frequently and allows users much greater flexibility in organizing input and output data.

MOVES2010a is the latest official version of MOVES that EPA has approved for SIP and conformity purposes. EPA originally announced the release of MOVES2010 in the Federal Register on March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411) and subsequently released MOVES2010a on September 8, 2010. MOVES2010a includes minor revisions that enhance model performance and do not significantly affect criteria pollutant emissions results. Since these are minor revisions to MOVES2010, MOVES2010a is not considered a “new model” under section 93.111 of the conformity rule, as described further below.

MOVES2010a is a significant improvement over the previous emissions model, MOBILE6.2, 2 in terms of quality of results and overall functionality. It incorporates the latest emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities. While these changes improve the quality of on-road mobile source inventories, the overall degree of change in the model's function also adds to the start-up time required for the transition from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a.

EPA developed MOVES as a completely new model. Whereas MOBILE6.2 was written in FORTRAN and used simple text files for data input and output, MOVES2010a is written in JAVA and uses a relational database structure in MYSQL to handle input and output as data tables. These changes make MOVES more flexible, and the analysis of new data incorporated within MOVES will enhance state and local agency understanding of how on-road mobile sources contribute to emissions inventories and the relative effectiveness of various control strategies. However, this new model framework has created a significant learning curve for state and local agency staff that are required to use MOVES. 3

In addition to the challenges of learning new software, state and local agencies also have to make substantial changes in the processes they have developed to create model input and apply model output. While there were incremental changes between each previous version of the MOBILE model, the basic input and output structure of that model was essentially unchanged since the early 1980s. Over time, state and local agencies developed their own methods for incorporating local inputs in MOBILE format and for post-processing MOBILE results for inventory development and air quality modeling. To help state and local agencies with this part of the current transition, EPA created a number of tools that take input data formatted for MOBILE6.2 and convert that data for use in MOVES2010a.

EPA anticipated many of these challenges when it released MOVES. In order to assist in this model transition, EPA and DOT have already provided hands-on MOVES training in many states. 4 Additional MOVES training for regional inventories has been requested, and will continue to be offered for the foreseeable future. EPA continues to provide other technical assistance to state and local agencies via on-going conference calls with user groups, e-mail and phone support, a frequently asked questions web page, and web-based presentations. All of these efforts are helping state and local agencies make the transition to MOVES2010a, and many agencies are making significant progress in applying the model for official purposes. However, other state and local agencies are still developing the technical capacity to use MOVES2010a, and need more time to transition to the model and then evaluate whether SIPs and their motor vehicle emissions budgets, or transportation plans and TIPs, should be revised for future conformity determinations.

Today's action provides additional time that is critical for nonattainment and maintenance areas to learn and apply MOVES2010a for regional conformity analyses. 5 EPA has been contacted by several state and local transportation and air quality agencies and associations that are concerned that there has not been sufficient transition time for using MOVES2010a in regional conformity analyses. These concerns revolve around the time needed to build technical capacity for using MOVES2010a as well as completing necessary SIP and/or transportation plan/TIP changes to assure conformity in the future. Further details on today's action are provided below.

Today's action does not affect EPA's previous approval of MOVES2010a for official SIP submissions developed outside of California. 6 Today's rulemaking also does not affect the existing grace period before MOVES2010a is required for PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and CO hot-spot analyses for project-level conformity determinations (75 FR 79370). EPA coordinated closely with DOT in developing today's action, and DOT concurs on this direct final rule.

CAA section 176(c)(1) states that “* * * [t]he determination of conformity shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such estimates shall be determined from the most recent population, employment, travel, and congestion estimates * * *.” To meet this requirement, section 93.111 of the conformity rule requires that conformity determinations be based on the latest motor vehicle emissions model approved by EPA. When EPA approves a new emissions model, EPA consults with DOT to establish a grace period before the model is required for conformity analyses (40 CFR 93.111(b)). EPA must consider many factors when establishing a grace period for conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.111(b)(2)). The length of the grace period will depend on the degree of change in the model and the scope of re-planning likely to be necessary for MPOs in order to assure conformity. The conformity rule provides for a grace period for new emissions models of between three and 24 months (40 CFR 93.111(b)(1)).

In the preamble to the original 1993 conformity rule, EPA articulated its intentions for establishing the length of conformity grace period for a new emissions model (58 FR 62211):

On March 2, 2010, EPA announced the official release of MOVES2010 and established a two-year grace period before this model was required for new regional conformity analyses (75 FR 9411). Although the original grace period was established for MOVES2010, EPA clarified in September 2010 that the same grace period for regional conformity analyses also applies to MOVES2010a. 7 EPA based its decision to establish a two-year conformity grace period on the factors under section 93.111(b)(2), and advised areas to use the interagency consultation process to examine the impact of using MOVES in their future regional conformity analyses.

Without further EPA action, MOVES2010a would be required for regional conformity analyses that begin after March 2, 2012. As discussed further in today's action, the special circumstances of the transition from MOBILE to MOVES2010a require a reevaluation of the length of this conformity grace period.

In today's action, EPA is providing an additional year before MOVES2010a is required for regional conformity analyses. As a result, EPA is also announcing in today's Federal Register that MOVES2010a will be required for new regional conformity analyses that begin after March 2, 2013. State and local agencies outside California can use MOVES2010a for regional conformity analyses earlier than March 2, 2013, if desired, and would be required to do so under limited circumstances such as after MOVES2010a SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets have been found adequate or approved for conformity purposes.

Due to the unique circumstances presented by the transition from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a, today's action adds a new paragraph (b)(3) to section 93.111 of the conformity rule. Today's final rule only applies to MOVES2010a and any future minor revisions to this model that EPA releases before March 2, 2013. Such minor revisions will not start a new grace period for regional conformity analyses and could include performance enhancements that reduce MOVES run time or model improvements to reduce errors in operating the model. Any major model updates would be evaluated separately as a “new model” under conformity rule section 93.111, pursuant to previously established requirements.

Between now and the end of the extended conformity grace period (March 2, 2013), areas should use the interagency consultation process to examine how MOVES2010a will impact their future MPO transportation plan/TIP conformity determinations. Isolated rural areas should also consider the impact of using MOVES2010a on future regional conformity analyses. Agencies should carefully consider whether the SIP and its motor vehicle emissions budgets should be revised with MOVES2010a or if transportation plans and TIPs should be revised before the end of the conformity grace period, since doing so may be necessary to ensure conformity in the future.

In general, regional conformity analyses that are started during the grace period can use either MOBILE6.2 or MOVES2010a. When the grace period ends on March 2, 2013, MOVES2010a will become the only approved motor vehicle emissions model for regional conformity analyses outside California. This means that all new regional conformity analyses started after the end of the grace period must be based on MOVES2010a, even if the SIP is based on MOBILE6.2 or earlier versions of MOBILE.

If you have questions about which model should be used in your conformity determination, you can consult with your EPA Regional Office. For complete explanations of how MOVES2010a is to be implemented for transportation conformity, including details about using MOVES2010a during the grace period, refer to EPA's existing MOVES policy guidance. 8

MOVES2010a is EPA's best tool for estimating criteria pollutant emissions, and it is a significant improvement over previous MOBILE models. State and local agencies have made significant progress to date in using MOVES2010a, and EPA supports these efforts and encourages that they continue. However, as discussed above, challenges related to start-up and model application have been much greater in the transition to MOVES2010a, compared to past transitions between MOBILE model versions. As a result, EPA has determined that a one-year extension of the MOVES2010a grace period is necessary for state and local agencies to complete the current transition. Today's action ensures that state and local governments have the necessary time to implement the conformity rule as originally intended.

Since 1993, the fundamental purpose of section 93.111(b) of the conformity rule has been to provide a sufficient amount of time for MPOs and other state and local agencies to adapt to using new emissions tools. As discussed above, the transition to a new emissions model for conformity involves more than learning to use the new model and preparing input data and model output. After model start-up is complete, state and local agencies also need to consider how the model affects regional conformity analysis results and whether SIP and/or transportation plan/TIP changes are necessary to assure future conformity determinations. EPA believes that this one-time extension of the current MOVES2010a regional grace period is critical to assure future conformity determinations based on MOVES2010a.

EPA has the discretion to establish an extended grace period for MOVES2010a, and today's action is consistent with CAA section 176(c)(1) requirements. EPA believes that providing one additional year is appropriate due to this unique transition from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a. This decision is consistent with the existing conformity criteria in section 93.111(b)(2) of the conformity rule that requires the length of the grace period to be based on “the degree of change in the model and the scope of re-planning likely to be necessary by MPOs in order to assure conformity.”

Today's action does not delay the use of MOVES2010a in SIP development or slow down past progress toward using the new model for regional conformity analyses. As noted above, many state and local agencies are already learning and applying MOVES2010a. Some are revising existing SIP budgets using the new model, while others may be incorporating MOVES2010a into new maintenance plans or clean data determinations. Under EPA's existing MOVES policy guidance, new or revised SIP budgets must still be based on MOVES2010a. For example, MOVES2010a continues to be required for attainment SIPs for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. MOVES2010a is also required for any regional conformity analyses prior to March 2, 2013 if SIP budgets based on MOVES2010 or MOVES2010a are approved or found adequate sooner. 9

In addition, today's action does not change the current MOVES2010a grace period for new PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and CO hot-spot analyses for project-level conformity determinations. EPA noted previously that a two-year conformity grace period was necessary to apply MOVES2010a for hot-spot analyses (75 FR 79370). However, the transition to MOVES2010a for project-level hot-spot analyses does not involve the complexity associated with the regional level, where SIP budgets and/or transportation plans/TIPs may need to be revised before regional conformity analyses based on MOVES2010a can be completed.

Finally, in issuing this rule, EPA is not proceeding pursuant to or reopening as a general matter the process and length of conformity grace periods for future emissions model approvals, which were previously established in 1993 (58 FR 62211). The unique set of circumstances involved in the current transition warrants additional state and local flexibility before MOVES2010a is required for regional conformity analyses.

The MOVES2010a regional grace period extension applies on the effective date of today's direct final rule in all nonattainment and maintenance areas. Section 51.390(a) of the conformity rule states that the Federal rule applies for the portion of the requirements that are not included in a state's approved conformity SIP. 10 Section 51.390(b) further allows state conformity provisions to contain criteria and procedures that are more stringent than the Federal requirements. However, in the case of states with conformity SIPs that include the grace period provision in 40 CFR 93.111(b)(1), EPA concludes that such states did not intend to require a shorter grace period than EPA, in consultation with DOT, believes is needed. Therefore, since the MOVES2010a grace period extension is a new provision being added to the conformity rule, it is not included in any current state conformity SIP and therefore applies immediately in all areas pursuant to section 51.390(a).

In addition, section 51.390(c) of the conformity rule requires states to submit a new or revised conformity SIP to EPA within 12 months of the Federal Register publication date of any final conformity amendments for certain situations. States with approved conformity SIPs that are prepared in accordance with current CAA requirements are not required to submit new conformity SIP revisions, since section 93.111 of the conformity rule is not contained in these SIPs. A conformity SIP prepared in accordance with current CAA requirements contains only the state's criteria and procedures for interagency consultation (40 CFR 93.105) and two additional provisions related to written commitments for certain control and mitigation measures (40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c)). However, states with approved conformity SIPs that include section 93.111 from a previous rulemaking are required to submit a SIP revision by October 12, 2012, although EPA strongly encourages these states to submit a SIP revision with only the three required provisions. 11 A state without an approved conformity SIP is not required to submit a new conformity SIP within one year of today's action, but previous conformity SIP deadlines continue to apply.

For additional information on conformity SIPs, please refer to the January 2009 guidance entitled, “Guidance for Developing Transportation Conformity State Implementation Plans” available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001 .pdf.

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

Under Executive Order 12866, this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The information collection requirements of EPA's existing transportation conformity regulations and the revisions in today's action are already covered by EPA information collection request (ICR) entitled, “Transportation Conformity Determinations for Federally Funded and Approved Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects.” OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0561. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations and small government jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation directly affects Federal agencies and MPOs that, by definition, are designated under Federal transportation laws only for metropolitan areas with a population of at least 50,000. These organizations do not constitute small entities within the meaning of the RFA. Therefore, this rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This rule merely implements already established law that imposes conformity requirements and does not itself impose requirements that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule will not significantly or uniquely impact small governments because it directly affects Federal agencies and MPOs that, by definition, are designated under Federal transportation laws only for metropolitan areas with a population of at least 50,000.

This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the national government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA requires conformity to apply in certain nonattainment and maintenance areas as a matter of law, and today's action merely revises one provision for transportation planning entities in subject areas to follow in meeting their existing statutory obligations. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The CAA requires transportation conformity to apply in any area that is designated nonattainment or maintenance by EPA. Because today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, EO 13175 does not apply to this action.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency regarding energy. This action is not subject to EO 13211 because it does not have any adverse energy effects.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The final rule involves a minor revision that provides administrative relief but does not change the conformity rule's underlying requirements for regional conformity analyses.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective November 14, 2011.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 93 is amended as follows:

On September 7, 2011, the Commission received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a revision to public information collection 3060-0411, which relates to the filing of complaints with the Federal Communications Commission.

The revision was necessitated by the adoption of a new data roaming rule requiring commercial mobile data service providers to offer data roaming arrangements to other such providers. 1 The Commission also provided a complaint process by adopting 47 CFR 20.12(e)(2). Specifically, a party alleging a violation of 47 CFR 20.12(e) may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in 47 CFR 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735. It is this rule, 47 CFR 20.12(e)(2), that is now effective.

Rule: 47 CFR 20.12(e)(2).

Effective date: 10/13/2011.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0411.

OMB Approval Date: 09/07/2011.

Collection 3060-0411 Expiration Date: 09/30/2014.

Title: Procedures for Formal Complaints.

Form No.: FCC Form 485.

Estimated Annual Burden: 20 respondents; 301 responses; 1,349 total annual hours.

Needs and Uses: On April 7, 2011, the Commission adopted, for data roaming, a complaint procedure using most of the procedural processes already in place for resolving formal complaints against common carriers. Specifically, a party alleging a violation of 47 CFR 20.12(e) may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in 47 CFR 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to ensure a consistent Commission process for resolving both voice and data roaming complaints. Moreover, some roaming disputes will involve both data and voice and are likely to have factual issues common to both types of roaming. This approach allows a party to bring a single proceeding to address such a dispute, rather than having to bifurcate the matter and initiate two separate proceedings under two different sets of procedures. This, in turn, will be more efficient for the parties involved, as well as for the Commission, and should result in faster resolution of such disputes.

This collection of information includes the process for submitting a formal complaint. The Commission uses this information to determine the sufficiency of complaints and to resolve the merits of disputes between the parties. Orders issued by the Commission in formal complaint proceedings are based upon evidence and argument produced by the parties in accordance with the Formal Complaint Rules. If the information were not collected, the Commission would not be able to resolve common carrier or commercial mobile data service provider related complaint proceedings. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

This is a summary of the Commission's Amendment of Part 64 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Telecommunication Relay Services and Related Customer Premises Equipment for Persons with Disabilities; Truth-in-Billing Requirements for Common Carriers, Order ( Order ), document DA 11-1649, adopted September 30, 2011, and released September 30, 2011. The full text of document DA 11-1649 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 11-1649 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 202-488-5300. Document DA 11-1649 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders .

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Document DA 11-1649 does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission will send a copy of document DA 11-1649 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. Document DA 11-1649 finds that a provision of Part 64, Subpart F of the Commission's rules regarding the Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer Premises Equipment for Persons with Disabilities no longer has legal effect. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) of the Commission's rules provides that the Commission shall review the Interstate Cost Recovery Plan (the “TRS Fund”) and the TRS Fund administrator's performance after two years. The administration of the TRS Fund and the rule mandating a review after an initial two year period became effective July 26, 1993. See Telecommunications Relay Services, 58 FR 39671, July 26, 1993 (amending 47 CFR 64.604). Since § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) of the Commission's rules became effective in 1993, the Commission has reviewed the TRS Fund on an annual basis and has modified the plan on several occasions. See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, Order, 76 FR 44326, July 25, 2011 (adopting new compensation rates for various forms of TRS to be paid from the TRS Fund for the 2011-12 Fund year and the contribution factor used to determine the amount common carriers must contribute to the Fund). The Commission had also conducted periodic reviews of the administrator's performance. See Appointment of Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Administrator and Composition of the Interstate TRS Advisory Council, CC Docket No. 90-571, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10553, 10554, paragraphs 10-11 (1999); Appointment of the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Administrator and Composition of the TRS Advisory Committee, CC Docket No. 90-571, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 7223, 7224, paragraphs 8-9 (1995). As the Commission reviewed the performance of the administrator and the Fund after two years of its promulgation, § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) of the Commission's rules is without current legal effect and thus may be deleted as obsolete.

2. Document DA 11-1649 also finds that a note in Part 64, Subpart Y of the Commission's rules, which establishes Truth-In-Billing Requirements for Common Carriers, no longer has legal effect. The note following the Commission's Truth-In-Billing Requirements, codified at 47 CFR 64.2401 of its rules, indicates that certain provisions of the rule are not effective and have been stayed until amendments to § 64.2401(a), (d), and (e) of the Commission's rules become effective, pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget and the Commission's publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing this approval and the effective date of these amended subsections. The amendments to the noted sections were published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2000, see Truth-In-Billing and Billing Format, 65 FR 43251, July 13, 2000 (amending 47 CFR 64.2401(a), (d), and (e)), and became effective upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget on August 28, 2000. See Truth-In-Billing and Billing Format, 65 FR 52048, August 28, 2000 (amending 47 CFR 64.2401(a), (d), and (e)).

3. Accordingly, the stay has been lifted and all provisions of the rule are currently effective. The note indicating that some provisions have been stayed is no longer accurate. For these reasons, the note following § 64.2401 of the Commission's rules is without current legal effect and thus may also be deleted as obsolete.

4. Accordingly, the Commission amends these rules by deleting these provisions that no longer have any legal effect. The rule amendments adopted in document DA 11-1649 and set forth herein are nonsubstantive, editorial revisions of the rules under 47 CFR 0.231(b) of the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore finds good cause to conclude that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and would not serve any useful purpose. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Because the rules being deleted are obsolete and without current legal effect, the Commission also finds good cause to make these nonsubstantive, editorial revisions of the rules effective October 13, 2011. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Because Document DA 11-1649 was adopted without notice and comment, see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., does not apply.

It is ordered that, effective October 13, 2011, Part 64 of the Commission's rules is amended, as set forth herein, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r), and § 0.231(b) of the Commission's regulations, 47 CFR 0.231(b).

The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will not send a copy of document DA 11-1649 or Regulatory Flexibility Act documents to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration because the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. These regulations set the recreational ACL for black sea bass in the South Atlantic at 409,000 lb (185,519 kg), gutted weight. However, NMFS published a temporary rule on October 4, 2011, which implemented a reduced recreational ACL beginning October 4, 2011, for the 2011-2012 fishing year (76 FR 61285) due to an ACL overage in the recreational sector of 67,253 lb (30,505 kg), gutted weight in the 2010-2011 fishing year. Therefore, the 2011-2012 recreational ACL for black sea bass in the South Atlantic is now 341,747 lb (155,014 kg), gutted weight, effective October 4, 2011, through May 31, 2012.

Black sea bass are managed throughout their range. In the South Atlantic EEZ, black sea bass are managed by the Council from 35°15.19′ N. lat., the latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina, south. From Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina, through Maine, black sea bass are managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Therefore, the closure provisions contained in this notice are applicable to those vessels harvesting or possessing black sea bass from Key West, Florida, through Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina.

Regulations effective January 31, 2011 (75 FR 82280, December 30, 2010), set the recreational ACL for black sea bass in the South Atlantic EEZ and established accountability measures (AMs), and require NMFS to close the recreational sector for black sea bass when the ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. The AMs state if black sea bass are overfished and if recreational landings reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 341,747 lb (155,014 kg), gutted weight, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), will close the recreational sector for black sea bass for the remainder of the fishing year (50 CFR 622.49(b)(5)(ii). On, and after, the effective date of the closure, the bag and possession limit of black sea bass in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. This zero bag and possession limit also applies in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in State or Federal waters.

Based on current statistics, NMFS has determined that the recreational ACL of 341,747 lb (155,014 kg), gutted weight, for black sea bass has been reached. Accordingly, NMFS is closing the recreational sector for black sea bass in the portion of the South Atlantic EEZ through Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina, from 12:01 a.m., local time, October 17, 2011, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2012. In order to announce this closure and provide relevant information to interested parties, NMFS will contact state marine fishery agencies and fish houses, announce the closure on NOAA Weather Radio, and distribute a fishery bulletin to provide additional notice to the recreational fishermen. The closure is intended to prevent overfishing and increase the likelihood that the current recreational ACL will not be exceeded even further.

This action responds to the best scientific information available recently obtained from the fishery. Black sea bass are overfished and are currently in a rebuilding plan, and exceeding the ACLs could jeopardize the rebuilding plan. The AA finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule implementing the sector ACL and the associated requirement for closure of the sector when the ACL is met or projected to be met has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because any additional delay in the closure of the recreational black sea bass sector could result in the recreational ACL being exceeded, which would result in another reduced ACL for the recreational sector in the 2012-2013 fishing season, and would produce additional adverse economic impacts for black sea bass fishermen.

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

The 2011 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 36,326 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (76 FR 11111, March 1, 2011).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2011 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 34,826 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 1,500 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 6, 2011.

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

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