On August 29, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule that amended more than fifty parts of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations and finalized seven interim rules. Immigration Benefits Business Transformation, Increment I, 76 FR 53764 (Aug. 29, 2011). The final rule removed form titles, number references, and position titles. The final rule also removed obsolete and expired regulatory provisions and corrected provisions that were affected by statutory changes.

DHS provided a 60-day public comment period and a 90-day effective date to provide the public with an opportunity to review the regulatory text and point out any errors made in the published final rule before it becomes effective. DHS has reviewed the public comments on the docket of this final rule and determined that several errors and omissions require correction. Specifically, through technical drafting oversights, DHS:

Accordingly, the publication on August 29, 2011 (76 FR 53764) of the final rule that was the subject of FR Doc. 2011-20990 is corrected as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53348), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.

Since we issued AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010), we have determined that new life limits on certain MLG components are necessary. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0166, dated August 6, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26, 2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26, 2011), we have reviewed EASA AD 2011-0048, dated March 18, 2011, which supersedes EASA AD 2010-0166, dated August 6, 2010, and has no substantive changes. The actions required by this AD correspond with the actions specified in EASA AD 2011-0048, dated March 18, 2011. We have revised the Summary and paragraphs (e) and (m) of this AD to refer to EASA AD 2011-0048, dated March 18, 2011. No other changes have been made to this AD.

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

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

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

We estimate that this AD will affect about 2 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010) and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.

We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $170, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 53348, August 26, 2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2011 (76 FR 45713). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. (the commenter) requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 45713, August 1, 2011) to reference Revision 7, dated June 5, 2010, of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), PSM 1-84-7, instead of Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) MRB-46, dated February 4, 2010, to Section 1-32, Systems/Powerplant Maintenance Program, of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report Part 1, of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 MRM, PSM 1-84-7. The commenter explained that this TR was removed from this MRM by Revision 7 of this MRM; therefore, this TR does not exist. The commenter reasoned that referencing Bombardier TR MRB-46 in the final rule will force operators to request an alternative method of compliance to use Revision 7 of this MRM, because this TR is no longer included in this MRM. The commenter suggested that, if the AD must reference the same document as Canadian AD CF-2010-26, dated August 17, 2010, then a paragraph needs to be added to the final rule allowing operators to remove this TR once it is incorporated into the manual by the general revision.

We agree that operators should be allowed to remove Bombardier TR MRB-46 once it is included in the general revision of the Bombardier MRM. Therefore, we have revised this final rule to add a note following paragraph (g) of this final rule to allow operators to remove Bombardier TR MRB-46, dated February 4, 2010, once it has been included in the general revisions of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 MRM. We have revised the final rule and re-identified subsequent notes accordingly.

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

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

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 65 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 45713, August 1, 2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36392). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine whether a third Halon fire extinguisher bottle is installed in the auxiliary power unit (APU) fragment impact zone, revising the limitations section of the airplane flight manual to add restrictions for APU usage for certain airplanes having a third fire extinguisher bottle, and removing the third fire extinguisher bottle from certain airplanes.

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

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 36392, June 22, 2011) to include an option for terminating action by incorporation of the amended supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01822AT-D, dated July 31, 2011. Gulfstream explained that the amended STC relocates the third halon fire extinguisher, and that Gulfstream could provide details of the amended STC as required to support the wording in the final rule. Gulfstream expressed that there is no need for a compliance time associated with their proposed terminating action since the interim actions “(APU operating limitation and AFM [airplane flight manual] revision)” will be in place as required by the NPRM.

We disagree with the request to revise the final rule to include an option for terminating action by incorporating the amended STC ST01822AT-D, dated July 31, 2011. The Gulfstream documents required (customer service bulletins and aircraft change instructions) for this action are not yet available. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an option for a terminating action as an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new action would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Gulfstream also indicated that the cost analysis for the inspection action is based on 1,000 airplanes whereas the AFM revision action is based on 70 airplanes, and that the bottle removal action is based on about 30 airplanes.

We infer that Gulfstream is requesting clarification on why 1,000 airplanes are inspected, but the on-condition action only applies to certain airplanes. All airplanes must be inspected to determine if they have the third fire extinguisher bottle and to determine if it is a spare. Gulfstream's indication that the AFM revision action is based on 70 airplanes, and that the bottle removal action is based on about 30 airplanes, is only an estimate. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36392, June 22, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD affects 1,000 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0232, dated November 12, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design ( i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.

We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-28-4097, Revision 05, including Appendix 1, dated June 3, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

There are no products of this type currently registered in the United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

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

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

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-1232; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-039-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During a routine inspection, cracks were found in a low-time HPC2 disc, part number (P/N) 2-101-332-12. Analysis has revealed that the cracks initiated during the forging process of a certain material ingot. Honeywell International Inc. has identified a suspect population of 29 HPC2 discs, by serial number (S/N), that were made from the affected material ingot. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained failure of the disc and damage to the airplane.

We reviewed Honeywell International Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ALF/LF-72-1113, dated September 16, 2011. The SB lists the affected HPC2 discs by P/N and S/N, and describes procedures for removing them from service.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there are no U.S. operators of airplanes with Honeywell International Inc. ALF502L-2C, ALF502R-3, ALF502R-3A, ALF502R-5, LF507-1F, and LF507-IH turbofan engines, with an affected HPC2 disc installed. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2011-1261 and Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-38-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects no Honeywell International Inc. ALF502L-2C, ALF502R-3, ALF502R-3A, ALF502R-5, LF507-1F, and LF507-IH turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. Therefore, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2010 (75 FR 82333). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking on the lower cap of the rear spar of the left and right wings between stations Xors=417 and the outboard edge of the lower cap splice of the wing rear spar at station Xors=400; temporary and permanent repairs if necessary; and repetitive inspections of repaired areas, and corrective actions if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since publication of the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010), Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2011. We have updated the references in paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to include Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2011. The changes in this revised service bulletin are for clarification only. However, certain inspections called eddy current test high frequency (ETHF) inspections in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2010 (which was referenced in the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010) as the appropriate source of service information for certain actions), are called high frequency eddy current inspections in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2011. This is different terminology for the same inspection method. We have followed the terminology in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2011, and used both terminologies as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2011. We are also allowing credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-57A156, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2010, and have added that reference to paragraph (h) of this AD.

Since publication of the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010), Boeing has also issued revised service rework drawings to clarify the repair instructions. These service rework drawings do not provide repairs for all conditions specified in the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010). We have updated the references in paragraph (g) of this AD to include Boeing DC-10-10 Service Rework Drawing SR10570019, Revision K, dated April 17, 2009, including Parts List PL SR10570019, Revision K, dated April 23, 2009, including Boeing Engineering Order, Revision L, dated April 14, 2010; and Boeing DC-10-10 Service Rework Drawing SR10570048, Revision K, dated October 7, 2010, including Parts List PL SR10570048, Revision K, dated October 14, 2010. We have also revised the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD to specify which conditions are addressed by these service rework drawings, and which conditions need a repair method approved by the FAA.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (75 FR 82333, December 30, 2010), for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 68 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0128-E, dated July 6, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Twenty nine HMUs have been identified with potential non-conformities in the proper adjustment of the metering valve. The exact location of these 29 HMUs is unknown. This AD requires actions to be done before further flight. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (SB) No. A292 73 2841, Version A, dated July 4, 2011, SB No. 292 73 2143, dated July 24, 2007, and SB No. 292 73 2840, Version A, dated June 28, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The one-time functional test required by the service bulletin is not a normal engine run-up test: the one-time functional test involves additional requirements including mode switching, that are not part of a normal engine run-up after start.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because this AD requires either replacing, or functional testing of the HMU before further flight. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-1031; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-27-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42602), and proposed to supersede AD 2007-16-02, Amendment 39-15141 (72 FR 44731, August 9, 2007). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

Airbus requested that we incorporate the latest revisions of the primary service bulletins, Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-57-3081 and A340-57-4089, both including Appendix 01, both Revision 04, both dated May 31, 2011, and give credit for actions performed according to the revisions of these service bulletins specified in the NPRM (76 FR 42602, July 19, 2011).

We agree to specify Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011, of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-57-3081 and A340-57-4089, and have changed paragraphs (h), (j)(1), (j)(3), (n), (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(2)(ii), (p)(1), and (p)(2); tables 1 and 3; and Notes 3 and 4; of this AD accordingly. Revision 04 of those service bulletins states that no additional work is required for airplanes modified by any previous issue of those service bulletins. We have also added Revision 03, dated July 31, 2009, of those service bulletins to table 2 of this AD, “Credit Service Information for Certain Actions.”

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

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

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will affect about 35 products of U.S. registry.

For the 9 airplanes affected by the existing AD, the actions that are required by AD 2007-16-02, Amendment 39-15141 (72 FR 44731, August 9, 2007), and retained in this AD take about 41 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $191 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $3,676 per product.

For the 26 additional airplanes added in this AD, we estimate the actions in this AD will take about 41 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $191 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD is $3,676 per product.

In addition, because this AD advises to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions, we cannot estimate the parts or labor costs for any necessary follow-on actions. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 42602, July 19, 2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Carroll, IA, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Arthur N. Neu Airport (76 FR 53353) Docket No. FAA-2011-0845. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the Carroll, IA area. Decommissioning of the Carroll NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Arthur N. Neu Airport has made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Arthur N. Neu Airport, Carroll, IA.

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

On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Ardmore, OK, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Ardmore Municipal Airport (76 FR 53355) Docket No. FAA-2011-0851. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the Ardmore, OK area. Decommissioning of the Arbuckle NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ardmore Municipal Airport, as well as the creation of new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, has made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, this action updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK.

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

History

On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Winters, TX, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Winters Municipal Airport (76 FR 53354) Docket No. FAA-2011-0608. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the Winters, TX area. Decommissioning of the Winters NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Winters Municipal Airport, as well as the creation of new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, has made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX.

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

On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Alice, TX, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Old Hoppe Place Airport (76 FR 53352) Docket No. FAA-2011-0498. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace for the Alice, TX area. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is being removed at Old Hoppe Place Airport, Agua Dulce, TX, due to the cancellation of all standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the Alice, TX, area. Also, the geographic coordinates for Alice International Airport, Orange Grove NALF, and the Kleberg County non-directional radio beacon (NDB) are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace in the Alice, TX, area.

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

History

On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Nashville, AR, creating additional controlled airspace at Howard County Airport (76 FR 53359) Docket No. FAA-2011-0497. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by creating additional Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach procedures at Howard County Airport, Nashville, AR. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace for Howard County Airport, Nashville, AR.

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

On August 31, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Danville, PA (76 FR 54155). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the airspace designation to be incomplete, and the geographic coordinates needed to be adjusted; this rule makes the adjustments. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to support new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures developed at Danville Airport, Danville, PA. This action also corrects the airspace designation from AEA PA E5 Danville, PA to AEA PA E5 Danville Airport, PA, and adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. This enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Except for editorial changes, and the changes noted above, this action is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

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

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Danville Airport, Danville, PA.

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

We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system. 1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink Online and the Online Forms/XML Web site.

The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 11 (November 2011) and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 18 (November 2011). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format. 2 Filers may consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission. 3

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 11.3 on November 21, 2011 and will introduce the following changes: EDGAR will be upgraded to support updates to submission form type ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A based upon final Rule 15Ga-1. 4 ABS-15G Item 1.02 will require start and end date of reporting period and also a file number if the securitizer has previously filed an ABS-15G under Item 1.01 for the same Asset Class as the report. ABS-15G Item 1.02 will have an option to indicate if the securitizer has no activity to report for the quarterly period pursuant to Rule 15Ga-1(c)(2)(i) and/or for the annual period pursuant to Rule 15Ga-1(c)(2)(ii). ABS-15G Item 1.01 will have an option to indicate that the securitizer has no activity to report for the initial period pursuant to Rule 15Ga-1(c)(1). Additionally, EDGAR will allow submission of multiple ABS-15G Item 1.01 submissions per CIK.

The validation rules processed for filings containing EX-101.INS XBRL documents will be changed to require all elements used to have US English standard labels and all non-English non-empty facts to have corresponding US English variants.

Submission form types 10-KT, 10-KT/A, 10-QT, 10-QT/A and POS AM can now be filed with XBRL documents. EX-101.INS XBRL documents included within POS AM submissions can have the element dei:DocumentType with content equal to F-1, F-3, F-4, F-9, F-10, S-1, S-3, S-4, S-11, POS AM or “Other”.

The OMB expiration date on EDGARLite Form TA-W (Notice of Withdrawal from Registration as Transfer Agent) will be updated to July 31, 2014.

New applicant type ‘Municipal Advisor' will be available for the filers to select when completing the Form ID to apply for EDGAR access codes. In addition, applicant types ‘Investment Company (or insurance product separate account) or Business Development Company' and ‘Non-Investment Company Applicant under the 1940 Act' will be updated to ‘Investment Company, Business Development Company or Insurance Company Separate Account' and ‘Non-Investment Company Applicant under the Investment Company Act of 1940' respectively.

There will be a minor .dot release, EDGAR Release 11.3.1, that will be deployed after Release 11.3 to implement additional XBRL validation changes. On December 12, 2011, the validation rules processed for filings containing EX-101.INS XBRL documents will be changed to require four digit xs:gYear values and will allow distinct values for all outstanding common share classes instead of requiring a single value for dei:EntityCommonStockSharesOutstanding of annual financial statements. For EX-101.SCH documents, the xsd:complexType, or xsd:simpleType name attribute in UTF-8 must be less than 200 bytes of UTF-8 text. The content for targetnamespace, roleURI or arcroleURI attribute in UTF-8 must not exceed 255 bytes in length. For EX-101.INS documents, the local name part of the content for xbrli:measure:element must be less than 200 bytes of text.

The filer manual is also being revised to address minor software changes made previously in EDGAR. Submission form types SC 14N, SC 14N-S and their amendments were made available for use on EDGARLink Online. Form 8-K Item 5.08 (Shareholder Director Nominations) was also made available for use on submission form types 8-K, 8-K12B, 8-K12G3, 8-K15D5 and their amendments.

Submission form types 13F-HR, 13F-HR/A, 13F-NT and 13F-NT/A were updated to accept March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31 as valid dates for the Period field. A future date will still be not allowed for the Period field.

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

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

Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act  6 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is November 29, 2011. In accordance with the APA, 7 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 11.3 is scheduled to become available on November 21, 2011. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 8 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 9 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 10 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. 11

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

The Department of Labor (Department) published the Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-agricultural Employment H-2B Program; Final Rule (the Wage Rule) on January 19, 2011, 76 FR 3452. The Wage Rule revised the methodology by which we calculate the prevailing wages to be paid to H-2B workers and United States (U.S.) workers recruited in connection with a temporary labor certification for use in petitioning the Department of Homeland Security to employ a nonimmigrant worker in H-2B status. The Department originally set the effective date of the Wage Rule for January 1, 2012. However, due to a court ruling that invalidated the January 1, 2012 effective date of the Wage Rule, 1 we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 28, 2011, which proposed that the Wage Rule take effect 60 days from the date of publication of a final rule resulting from the NPRM. 76 FR 37686, June 28, 2011. After a period of public comment, we published a Final Rule on August 1, 2011, which set the new effective date for the Wage Rule of September 30, 2011 (the Effective Date Rule).

Both the Wage Rule and the Effective Date Rule recently were challenged in two separate lawsuits  2 seeking to bar their implementation. In consideration of the two pending challenges to the Wage Rule and its new effective date, and the possibility that the litigation will be transferred to another court, 3 the Department issued a final rule, 76 FR 59896, September 28, 2011, postponing the effective date of the Wage Rule from September 30, 2011, until November 30, 2011, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 705.

On November 18, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, which provides that “[n]one of the funds made available by this or any other Act for fiscal year 2012 may be used to implement, administer, or enforce, prior to January 1, 2012 the [Wage Rule].” Public Law 112-55, Div. B, Title V, § 546 (Nov. 18, 2011). While the Act prevents the expenditure of funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Wage Rule before January 1, 2012, it does not prohibit the Wage Rule from going into effect, which is scheduled to occur on November 30, 2011. When the Wage Rule goes into effect, it will supersede and make null the prevailing wage provisions at 20 CFR 655.10(b) of the Department's existing H-2B regulations, which were promulgated under Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or Registered Nursing in the United States (H-2B Workers), and Other Technical Changes; Final Rule, 73 FR 78020, Dec. 19, 2008 (the H-2B 2008 Rule). Allowing the Wage Rule to go into effect as planned on November 30, 2011, would therefore render the Department unable to issue prevailing wage determinations under the 2008 H-2B Rule, because it would no longer exist.

Although dates of need are not included in prevailing wage determination requests, it is possible that some of the pending requests with the Department would cover work to be performed before January 1, 2012, and accordingly, the wage would need to be determined in accordance with the 2008 H-2B Rule. However, if the Wage Rule were to go into “effect” on November 30, 2011, we would be legally precluded during the month of December 2011 from issuing prevailing wage determinations under the H-2B 2008 Rule. This result would be directly contrary to Congressional intent as expressed in its Conference Report that “[i]n making prevailing wage determinations for the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program for employment prior to January 1, 2012, the conferees direct the Secretary of Labor to continue to apply the [H-2B 2008 Rule]” H.R. Rept. No. 112-284 (Conf. Rep.), 157 Cong. Rec. H7528 (Nov. 14, 2011). Because of the imminent threat that the Department will be unable to issue prevailing wage determinations for work to be performed before January 1, 2012, the Department considers this situation an emergency warranting the publication of a final rule under the good cause exception of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Accordingly, we must further delay the effective date of the Wage Rule to January 1, 2012.

Based on Congressional intent and to avoid an operational hiatus during the month of December 2011, the Department finds good cause to adopt this rule, effective immediately, and without prior notice and comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). We believe that immediate action must be taken so that the employment of H-2B workers will not adversely affect U.S. workers similarly employed, and that employers are able to obtain a temporary non-agricultural workforce where there are no U.S. workers available for the job. The Department is simply effectuating the intent of Congress that the H-2B 2008 Rule should continue to govern prevailing wage determinations for employment before January 1, 2012. As such, a delay in promulgation of this rule past the date of publication would be impracticable and unnecessary and disrupt the program to the detriment of the public interest.

The Department published the Wage Rule on January 19, 2011, 76 FR 3452. The Wage Rule revised the methodology by which we calculate the prevailing wage to be paid to H-2B workers and United States (U.S.) workers recruited in connection with a temporary labor certification used in petitioning the Department of Homeland Security to employ a nonimmigrant worker in H-2B status. The Department originally set the effective date of the Wage Rule for January 1, 2012. Due to a court ruling that invalidated the January 1, 2012 effective date of the Wage Rule, 1 we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 28, 2011, which proposed that the Wage Rule take effect 60 days from the date of publication of a final rule resulting from the NPRM. 76 FR 37686, Jun. 28, 2011. We published a Final Rule on August 1, 2011, which set the new effective date of September 30, 2011 for the Wage Rule (the Effective Date Rule). In anticipation of the effective date of the Wage Rule, the Department issued supplemental prevailing wage determinations to those employers who had been granted certification for an H-2B application where work would be performed on or after September 30, 2011.

Both the Wage Rule and the Effective Date Rule were challenged in two separate lawsuits  2 seeking to bar their implementation. In consideration of the two pending challenges to the Wage Rule and its new effective date, and the possibility that the litigation may be transferred to another court, 3 the Department issued a Federal Register notice, 76 FR 59896, Sep. 28, 2011, postponing the effective date of the rule from September 30, 2011, until November 30, 2011, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 705. Following the postponement of the effective date to November 30, 2011, and in anticipation of the new effective date, the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) issued participating employers two simultaneous wage determinations for work to be potentially performed before and after the new effective date of the Wage Rule. The first determination was based on the former regulations that applied up until November 30, and the second determination was based on the new prevailing wage methodology set forth in the Wage Rule, that was to be effective for work performed on and after November 30, 2011.

On November 18, 2011, 2011, the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, H.R. 2112, 112th Cong. (2011) (enacted). The legislation contains language prohibiting the Department from implementing, administering, or enforcing, prior to January 1, 2012, the Wage Rule. While the Act prevents the expenditure of funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Wage Rule before January 1, 2012, it does not prohibit the Wage Rule from going into effect, which is scheduled to occur on November 30, 2011. When the Wage Rule goes into effect, it will supersede and nullify the prevailing wage provisions at 20 CFR 655.10(b) of the Department's existing H-2B regulations, which were promulgated under Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or Registered Nursing in the United States (H-2B Workers), and Other Technical Changes; Final Rule, 73 FR 78020, Dec. 19, 2008 (the H-2B 2008 Rule).

Since dates of need are not included in prevailing wage determination requests, it is possible that some of the pending requests with the Department would cover work to be performed before January 1, 2012, and accordingly, that wage would need to be determined in accordance with the 2008 H-2B Rule. However, if the Wage Rule were to go into “effect” on November 30, 2011, we would be legally precluded during the month of December 2011 from issuing prevailing wage determinations under the H-2B 2008 Rule. This result would be directly contrary to Congressional intent as expressed in the Conference Report, “[i]n making prevailing wage determinations for the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program for employment prior to January 1, 2012, the conferees direct the Secretary of Labor to continue to apply the [H-2B 2008 Rule].” H.R. Rept. No. 112-284 (Conf. Rep.), 157 Cong. Rec. H7528 (Nov. 14, 2011). Based on Congressional intent and to avoid an operational hiatus during the month of December 2011, the Department has published a Final Rule extending the effective date of the Wage Rule to apply to work performed on and after January 1, 2012. See the final rule delaying the effective date of the H-2B Wage Rule, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

In light of the recent postponement of the effective date of the Wage Rule until January 1, 2012, the Department is hereby providing notice that the wage determinations previously issued under the Wage Rule will not be effective until January 1, 2012, and will apply only to work performed on or after January 1, 2012. Any employer who has received an H-2B prevailing wage determination in anticipation of either the September 30, 2011 or November 30, 2011 effective dates is not required to pay, and the Department's Wage and Hour Division will not enforce, the wage provided in the prevailing wage determination issued under the Wage Rule for any work performed by H-2B workers or U.S. workers recruited in connection with the H-2B application process until January 1, 2012. Employers are expected to continue to pay at least the prevailing wage as provided in a prevailing wage determination issued under the 2008 H-2B Rule for any work performed before January 1, 2012.

Further, employers who received a supplemental H-2B prevailing wage determination, or a prevailing wage determination issued under the Wage Rule, must pay at least that wage to any H-2B worker and any U.S. worker recruited in connection with the labor certification for work performed on or after January 1, 2012.

The General Edwards Bridge, across the Saugus River at mile 1.7 between Lynn and Revere, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 27 feet at mean high water and 36 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b).

The waterway users are recreational vessels of various sizes. The bridge opened only 9 times between November and April since 2002 and there were no openings between November and April in 2010. During the winter months the bridge rarely opens since the recreational vessels that transit this waterway are normally in winter storage.

The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to help facilitate rehabilitation at the bridge.

Under this temporary deviation the General Edwards Bridge shall operate as follows: From November 21, 2011 through April 24, 2012, the draw shall open after at least a 48 hour advance notice is given by calling the Massachusetts DOT Highway Operations Center at 1-(800) 227-0608. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time.

The Coast Guard believes that this temporary deviation should meet the reasonable needs of navigation because the mariners that normally use this bridge are recreational vessels that do not operate during the winter months when this deviation will be in effect.

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

The 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. The safety zone remains urgently necessary to help ensure the safety of the response workers and the maritime public due to the ongoing cofferdam removal operations and site cleanup.

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 because the safety zone continues to be immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of the response workers and the maritime public due to the cofferdam removal operations. Additionally, the consequences of the reduced publication notice is diminished by the fact that a safety zone has already been in place at this location.

The remaining cofferdam at the M/V DAVY CROCKETT removal site is located on the Washington State side of the Columbia River at approximately river mile 117. The Coast Guard, other state and federal agencies, and federal contractors are conducting cofferdam removal operations. The cofferdam removal operations require a minimal wake in the vicinity of the cofferdam to help ensure the safety of response workers. Only authorized persons and/or vessels can be safely allowed in the worksite cleanup area.

A 300 ft safety zone is necessary to keep vessels clear of the cofferdam removal operations. The previous 300 ft safety zone will expire on October 31, 2011.

The Coast Guard is extending the enforcement of the safety zone created by this rule until November 30, 2011. The safety zone will cover all waters of the Columbia River encompassed within the following four points: point one at 45°34′59.74″ N/122°28′35.00″ W on the Washington bank of the Columbia River then proceeding into the river to point two at 45°34′51.42″ N/122°28′35.47″ W, then proceeding upriver to the third point at 45°34′51.02″ N/122°28′07.32″ W, then proceeding to the shoreline to the fourth point on the Washington Bank at 45°34′56.06″ N/122°28′07.36″ W, then back along the shoreline to point one. Geographically, this encompasses all the waters within an area starting at approximately 300 ft upriver from the cofferdam removal area extending to 300 ft abreast of the cofferdam removal area and then ending 300 ft down river of the cofferdam removal area.

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 safety zones created by this rule will not significantly affect the maritime public because the areas covered are limited in size and/or have little commercial or recreational activity. In addition, vessels may enter the safety zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Columbia River or his designated representative.

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 areas covered by the safety zones created in this rule. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the areas covered are limited in size. In addition, vessels may enter the safety zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Columbia River or his designated representative.

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 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, eliminates 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 creation of safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be 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:

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.

Federal groundfish fisheries in the EEZ from 3 to 200 nm off the coast of Alaska may be opened by NMFS to directed fishing for Pacific cod and other groundfish species. The Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) may open groundfish fisheries in State of Alaska waters through emergency orders that parallel the openings and management measures in the Federal groundfish fishery.

To participate in Federal fisheries, NMFS requires various permits that authorize or limit access to the Federal groundfish fisheries, such as a Federal fisheries permit (FFP) and a license limitation program (LLP) license. Operators of vessels designated on an FFP are required to comply with many Federal catch monitoring regulations, including observer and recordkeeping and reporting requirements while participating in Federal and parallel fisheries. Operators of vessels designated on an FFP and endorsed with the appropriate species designation on the FFP are required to comply with NMFS Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) reporting requirements if they participate in the directed Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or pollock fisheries in Federal or parallel waters. However, a vessel used to fish exclusively in the State parallel water fisheries is not required to be designated on an FFP and the operator does not need to comply with NMFS observer, VMS, or recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition, to participate in a non-trawl directed fishery for Pacific cod as a catcher/processor (C/P) in the Bering Sea (BS) or Aleutian Islands (AI), a vessel also must be designated on an LLP license with an endorsement for Pacific cod in the BS or AI for a C/P using pot or hook-and-line gear. These endorsements on an LLP license are not severable from the license. An LLP license with its associated endorsements may be assigned to a different vessel only once per year.

Some vessel operators fishing for Pacific cod have surrendered or amended endorsements on their FFPs before fishing in the Pacific cod parallel fishery. As a result, they are not subject to NMFS observer, VMS, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This compromises the ability of NMFS to collect from the parallel waters Pacific cod fishery data that is necessary for management, compliance monitoring and research of groundfish fisheries and the conservation of marine resources.

Several Federally permitted operators of pot and hook-and-line C/Ps have been participating in the BSAI parallel Pacific cod fishery without being issued the FFP and LLP license endorsements on those permits and licenses that are necessary to participate in the Federal Pacific cod fishery. These vessel operators recently entered the parallel fishery without demonstrating a long-term economic dependence on the Pacific cod fishery. The additional catch of Pacific cod resulting from this activity was circumventing the intended effectiveness of three FMP amendments that were implemented to control access and curtail the excessive competition and fishing effort that had developed in the Pacific cod fishery throughout much of the previous two decades. These three FMP amendments are the BSAI FMP Amendment 67 Pacific cod LLP endorsement (67 FR 18129, April 15, 2002), the BSAI FMP Amendment 85 Pacific cod sector allocations (72 FR 50788, September 4, 2007), and the BSAI hook-and-line C/P sector Pacific cod capacity reduction program (71 FR 57696, September 29, 2006). Catch of Pacific cod taken by the C/Ps that do not have the necessary FFP and LLP license endorsements is deducted by NMFS from the Federal TAC (§ 679.20(a)(7)) and then is not available to other participants in the Federal fisheries Pacific cod sector.

In consideration of the effects of the practices described in the Background section on the allocation of Pacific cod and data quality, NMFS implements the following three revisions to participation of pot or hook-and-line C/Ps in the Pacific cod parallel fishery. These three revisions amend regulations for pot and hook-and-line C/Ps by extending FFP and LLP endorsement requirements that apply in Federal fisheries to the Pacific cod parallel fishery, placing restrictions on the provisions reissuing or amending an FFP, and requiring operators of these pot and hook-and-line C/Ps participating in the State parallel fishery to comply with seasonal closures of Pacific cod in the BSAI.

The first of the three revisions broadens the applicability of endorsements on FFPs and LLP licenses in the parallel fishery. The endorsements apply to vessels designated on an FFP that fish for Pacific cod in the parallel fishery, use pot or hook-and-line gear in the parallel fishery, and catch and process Pacific cod in the parallel fishery. This rule amends § 679.7(c)(3) to prohibit a person from using pot or hook-and-line gear on a vessel designated on an FFP to catch and process Pacific cod in the parallel fishery in the BSAI unless:

1. The FFP has a C/P vessel operation endorsement; a pot or hook-and-line gear endorsement; and a BSAI area endorsement; and

2. The LLP license has a C/P vessel operation endorsement; a non-trawl gear endorsement; an Aleutian Islands area endorsement or a Bering Sea area endorsement; and a BSAI C/P Pacific cod hook-and-line or BSAI C/P Pacific cod pot endorsement.

This rule clarifies that under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the endorsements listed in 1 and 2 as well as any conditions of these FFP and LLP endorsements apply to owners of Federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/P vessels fishing for Pacific cod in the parallel fishery.

The second revision adds a new paragraph (B) to § 679.4(b)(4)(ii) to provide that, once surrendered, NMFS will not reissue an FFP to the owner of a vessel with a C/P vessel operation, pot or hook-and-line gear type, and BSAI area endorsement during the remainder of the 3-year term of the original FFP. This revision should deter an owner of a C/P using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI from periodically surrendering his or her FFP primarily to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

This action also adds new paragraph (B) to § 679.4(b)(4)(iii) to prohibit the owner of a vessel named on an FFP with endorsements for C/P vessel operation category, pot or hook-and-line gear, and BSAI area groundfish from amending the FFP by removing the C/P operation, pot or hook-and-line gear, or BSAI area endorsements.

This rule further amends § 679.4(b)(4)(iii) to refer to the “owner” of a vessel who applied for and held an FFP rather than to the “owner or operator.” The term operator is removed because FFPs may only be issued to vessel owners.

The third revision applies Pacific cod seasonal closure requirements to Federally permitted pot and hook-and-line C/Ps in both Federal and parallel Pacific cod fisheries. The closure requirements are implemented by adding paragraph (4) to § 679.7(c) to prohibit operators of vessels in the pot or hook-and-line C/P sector that are named on an FFP from fishing for Pacific cod in the parallel fishery once the directed fishery for Pacific cod for their sector is closed in Federal waters. Owners of Federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/Ps who intend to catch and process Pacific cod in the parallel fishery receive notice from NMFS in the instructions for the FFP and in this rule that any Pacific cod caught by that vessel in the parallel fishery will be deducted from the Federal TAC. This rule is intended to improve enforceability of regulations at § 679.7(c)(3) and (c)(4) by clarifying that the owner of a Federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/P will be in violation of these regulation prohibiting catching and processing Pacific cod in the parallel fishery during a seasonal closure or without the required FFP and LLP license endorsements.

This action requires owners of pot and hook-and-line C/Ps to be issued specific permits and endorsements to fish for Pacific cod in the State parallel fishery. This action effectively requires an owner of a pot or hook-and-line C/P who is issued an FFP to choose to fish for Pacific cod predominantly in the Federal fishery, or surrender the FFP and fish in State waters for the remainder of the 3-year term of the FFP. Owners of pot or hook-and-line C/Ps eligible to participate in the Federal fisheries are unlikely to surrender their FFP and give up the opportunity to continue to fish Pacific cod in the Federal fishery unless they are close to the end of the 3-year term of the FFP. Relying exclusively on Pacific cod catch in the parallel and other State fisheries for up to 3 years could represent a significant loss in revenue for many C/Ps because most Pacific cod are located in and caught in the Federal waters of the BSAI. Although this action does not prohibit the owner of a C/P without an FFP or LLP license from participating in the parallel fishery, it is intended to discourage the current practice of surrendering an FFP or removing an endorsement from an FFP before participating in the parallel fishery to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

This action supports the conservation and management of Federal fisheries as provided by Amendments 67 and 85 to the BSAI FMP. Amendment 67 created exclusive pot C/P and hook-and-line C/P sectors in order to participate in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery through an LLP. The creation of sectors effectively removed some vessels that did not historically participate in these Pacific cod fisheries, and reduced competition that contributed to the race for fish. Some of the C/Ps that did not qualify for the necessary LLP endorsement in Amendment 67 continue to fish for Pacific cod in the parallel fishery off allocations for the C/P pot and hook-and-line sectors created by Amendment 85. This action applies the same LLP endorsements that are required for Federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/Ps to participate in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery to the parallel Pacific cod fishery, limiting the ability of C/Ps without an LLP or the appropriate LLP endorsements to fish off the Pacific cod sector allocations in the parallel fishery. Thus, this action contributes to conservation and management objectives by preventing C/Ps without an LLP or the appropriate endorsements to continue to participate in the parallel fishery, reducing the pool of vessels competing for limited allocations to the C/P pot and hook-and-line sectors, and limiting the race for fish in the BSAI.

An interim final rule for Steller sea lion protection measures (75 FR 77535, December 13, 2010, corrected 75 FR 81921, December 29, 2010) established closures in critical habitat waters 0 nm to 3 nm around certain rookeries and haulouts in the Aleutian Islands subarea. In the November 2010 Biological opinion that served as the basis for the Steller sea lion interim final rule, NMFS analyzed the application of closures for parallel and Federal Pacific cod fisheries. In that analysis, the parallel fishery was expected to be managed with the same closures as specific for the Federal Pacific cod fisheries as shown in Table 12 to 50 CFR part 679. Although the interim final rule closed State waters occurring inside Steller sea lion critical habitat, on January 11, 2011, the State issued an emergency order that allowed for Pacific cod harvest by hook-and-line vessels 58 ft length overall (LOA) or less, and by pot vessels 60 feet LOA or less, in critical habitat located in State waters between 175 degrees W. longitude and 178 degrees W. longitude. These areas are closed to Federally permitted vessels. NMFS has initiated an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the State's emergency order. Although this action does not prohibit the owner of a C/P without an FFP or LLP license from participating in the parallel fishery, this rule is intended to discourage a pot or hook-and-line C/P from surrendering its FFP and fishing in the parallel fishery in those areas closed in Table 12 to 50 CFR part 679 but open under State parallel management. This action will facilitate implementation of the closure areas for the protection of Steller sea lion critical habitat, as provided in the interim final rule and required by the biological opinion.

Detailed information on the management background and need for the action is in the preamble to the proposed rule (76 FR 13331, March 11, 2011). The regulatory amendments in this rule are unchanged from the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule were invited through April 11, 2011. NMFS received two submissions containing one unique public comment on the proposed rule. The comment is summarized and responded to below.

Comment: The commenters express support for the action because it may address loopholes that promoted an increase in fishing effort for Pacific cod, a prey species for endangered populations of Steller sea lions. Further, the commenters assert that the rule improves monitoring of Pacific cod fisheries.

Response: NMFS concurs.

NMFS makes two changes in the final rule to correct the following references to be consistent with existing regulations. To correct the references, one change is made to § 679.7(c)(4)(i) to reflect the correct regulatory reference § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(4) through § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(6), and one change is made in § 679.7(c)(4)(ii) to reflect the correct regulatory reference § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(6) through § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(4). These corrections relate the appropriate gear type for pot or hook-and-line gear with the correct citation. These corrections have no other effect than to make the references consistent with current regulation at § 679.20.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.

The preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide required by Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS at the following Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

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

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as required by section 604(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and provides a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The FRFA for this final action explains the need for this rule, and its objectives. The FRFA notes that one public comment on the IRFA was submitted; describes and estimates the number of small entities to which the rule will apply; describes projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule; and describes the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

This action is necessary because several owners of pot and hook-and-line C/Ps who have been issued an FFP and have been participating in the BSAI parallel Pacific cod fishery without being issued the FFP and LLP license endorsements on those permits and licenses that are necessary to participate in the Federal Pacific cod fishery. The additional catch of Pacific cod resulting from fishing without FFP and LLP license endorsements was circumventing the intended effectiveness of three FMP amendments that were implemented to control access and curtail the excessive competition and fishing effort that had developed in the Pacific cod fishery throughout much of the previous two decades. Other vessel owners in the BSAI parallel Pacific cod fishery have surrendered or amended endorsements on their FFPs before fishing in the Pacific cod parallel fishery to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, or recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The objectives for this action are to deter owners of pot and hook-and-line C/Ps from fishing for Pacific cod in the parallel fishery without the necessary FFP and LLP license endorsements, and to reduce the opportunities for C/P vessel owners to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, or recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

A proposed rule was published on March 11, 2011 (76 FR 13331) that included a summary of the IRFA that was prepared for the proposed rule. The public comment period ended on April 11, 2011. No comments specific to the IRFA were received. The one comment received specific to the action was in favor of the action and was summarized earlier in the preamble under Comments and Responses.

The directly regulated entities for this final action are the members of the commercial fishing industry that own groundfish pot or hook-and-line C/Ps that operate in the BSAI and State parallel waters. Under a conservative application of the Small Business Administration criterion and the best available data, there are four small entities out of a total of 44 vessels in 2008 that will be directly regulated by the final action. To provide these estimates, earnings from all Alaskan fisheries for 2008 were matched with the vessels that participated in the BSAI pot or hook-and-line fishery for that year.

To minimize impacts on small entities, this action will not apply to pot or hook-and-line C/Ps of less than 32 ft length overall (LOA), or to pot or hook-and-line catcher vessels. The catcher vessels participating in these fisheries are generally operating in parallel and other fisheries only, and are not required by NMFS to be designated on an LLP license or FFP to participate in these groundfish fisheries.

In addition to the action alternative, NMFS evaluated an alternative to prohibit any owner of a vessel with a C/P endorsement on its FFP from amending the C/P endorsement, and only allow surrender or reactivation of the FFP at the end of the FFP permit cycle. That alterative was rejected because it applied to jig and trawl C/Ps, and was beyond the scope of the problem statement and analysis. NMFS also evaluated the “no action” alternative, but it was rejected because it does not address the problem statement.

The majority of the directly regulated entities under this action are not considered small entities, as defined under the RFA. Within the universe of small entities that are the subject of this FRFA, impacts may accrue differently ( i.e., some small entities could be negatively affected and others positively affected). Thus, this final action represents tradeoffs in terms of impacts on small entities. However, this action provides options for the smallest of the small entities under this amendment by excluding catcher vessels from the regulatory changes. The restrictions on participation in the BSAI Pacific cod parallel fishery only apply to pot and hook-and-line C/Ps; therefore only these C/Ps are considered here.

Overall, it is unlikely that the combination of these restrictions will preclude vessel owners with a high degree of economic dependence upon the pot or hook-and-line groundfish fisheries from participating in the Pacific cod parallel fishery. Most of the vessel owners who are highly dependent on these fisheries were issued an LLP license with pot or hook-and-line Pacific cod endorsements, in 2003, under Amendment 67, by demonstrating recent catch history in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery. Most of the vessel owners who have not been issued an LLP license with a Pacific cod endorsement and who have fished in the parallel fishery are recent entrants to the fishery and have not demonstrated long-term economic dependence on the fishery. These vessel owners will continue to have access to the state Pacific cod fishery after implementation of the final action. None of the entities that have historically engaged in the practices described in the preamble to this rule, and that circumvented the intent of sector allocations in the Pacific cod fishery, are small entities.

Based upon the best available scientific data, and consideration of the objectives of this action, NMFS determined that there are no alternatives to this action that have the potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential to minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the rule on small entities. The analysis did not identify any Federal rules that will duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the action. This rule requires revisions to some existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements but imposes no new requirements on the affected vessel owners or operators.

This rule contains collection-of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB Control No. 0648-0206. Public reporting burden for an Application for a Federal Fisheries Permit is estimated to average 21 minutes per response. This rule also includes a collection-of-information that has been approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 0334. Total public reporting burden for the License Limitation Program is estimated at 268 hours.

These estimates of public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed as well as completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see Public ADDRESSES ); email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows:

The WCPFC was established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention). The Convention's objective is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including measures to manage and conserve tunas and to minimize impacts on non-target, associated, and dependent species, such as sea turtles and seabirds. Figure 1 is a map of the Convention Area. Several U.S. troll, pole-and-line, tuna purse seine, and pelagic longline fisheries operate in the Convention Area.

Under the Convention and decisions of the WCPFC, specifically Conservation and Management Measure 2004-03, “Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels,” vessels that are authorized to fish on the high seas in the Convention Area are required to be identified in accordance with the Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. By the final rules published on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3335 and 3416), NMFS implemented those standards for U.S. fishing vessels under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), but those regulations did not extend to fishing vessels with west coast HMS permits or operating under the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty. Specifically, U.S. vessels fishing for HMS on the high seas for commercial purposes that are required to obtain a NMFS-issued WCPFC Area Endorsement are required to display their IRCS on the port and starboard sides of the hull or superstructure and deck surface. If an IRCS has not been assigned, the vessels are required to display their official number ( i.e., USCG documentation number or other registration number) preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen ( i.e., “USA-”). Only these markings are allowed on the hull or superstructure, apart from the vessel's name and hailing port.

This final rule is consistent with the requirements adopted by the WCPFC as it revises existing vessel identification regulations at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, §§ 660.704 and 300.173 to conform to the international standards. U.S. vessels that are issued a permit under 50 CFR 660.707, i.e., vessels that fish for HMS off the coasts of or land HMS in the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, and that fish for HMS on the high seas of the Convention Area are, under this final rule, required to display vessel markings as described above. Vessels that fish for HMS only within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the U.S. West Coast or on the high seas outside of the Convention Area ( e.g., in the eastern Pacific Ocean) have the option to be marked pursuant to the vessel identification requirements described above, or maintain existing markings. This final rule modifies only the requirements for the size and characters with which Federally-permitted HMS fishing vessels are marked, and does not modify the requirements for vessel operations or for other aspects of HMS fisheries. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) was briefed on this issue at its September 2008 meeting; in a letter dated November 20, 2008, the Council formally recommended that NMFS revise regulations accordingly.

It is estimated that at a maximum 125 vessel owners would change their vessel markings (estimate based on the current number of active U.S. west coast-based vessels targeting HMS on the high seas that have the potential to fish in the Convention Area) as a result of the rule. However, it is highly likely that a much smaller number of vessel owners will actually be required to change their markings. In recent years fewer than 10 U.S. west coast-based vessels have fished in the Convention Area. In addition, there are vessels based out of Hawaii that have west coast HMS permits that fish in the Convention Area and therefore will be required to change their markings, including at least 15 longline vessels and 8 troll and bait boat vessels. Some vessels may also opt to change their markings to conform to international standards and be prepared to fish in the Convention Area should fishing conditions and practices change in the future.

NMFS received two public comments during the comment period. One comment from the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) expressed support for the action. The other comment sent by the Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) conveyed some concern and confusion regarding the applicability of the requirements to the albacore troll and baitboat fleet.

Comment 1: The HLA expressed support for this action given that HLA vessels often move across the boundary between the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) and the Convention Area and having a single set of marking requirements will facilitate such movements.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment in support of the action.

Comment 2: A comment received from WFOA noted some concern and confusion with the following statement in the preamble of the proposed rule regarding the vessel identification requirements for U.S. vessels used for commercial fishing for HMS on the high seas with a NMFS-issued WCPFC Area Endorsement, “Only these markings would be allowed on the hull or superstructure, apart from the vessel's name and hailing port.” The commenter also noted that this statement was made in the preamble of the proposed rule but was not included in the proposed regulatory text. The letter noted that the “current rule unfortunately can be read that the only marking acceptable under it is that called for by the WCPFC so that now a vessel fishing in the South Pacific has to have one identification mark, and when it returns to the Eastern Pacific Fishery and fishes under the treaty with Canada the vessel identification number has to be changed to what is called for under those regulations.” The commenter also expressed the belief that a vessel marked in accordance with the regulations for the U.S. Albacore Treaty with Canada should adequately fulfill the requirements under the WCPFC per section 2.1.1(b) of the WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure on Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2004-03).

Response: The statement in the preamble to the proposed rule regarding the requirement to have only one set of vessel identification markings on a fishing vessel is a reference to regulations governing U.S. vessels with a WCPFC Area Endorsement under 50 CFR 300.217(b)(2), which reads, “With the exception of the vessel's name and hailing port, the marking required in this section shall be the only vessel identification mark consisting of letters and numbers to be displayed on the hull and superstructure.” This is one of the requirements for vessel identification under section 2.1.3(a) of WCPFC CMM 2004-03. Thus, if a U.S. vessel anticipates fishing in the Convention Area and obtains a WCPFC Area Endorsement, the vessel is required to be marked in accordance with 50 CFR 300.14 and 300.217. However, if a U.S. vessel operating with a west coast HMS permit or under the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty does not require a WCPFC Area Endorsement, it may maintain its current vessel markings according to 50 CFR 660.704 or 50 CFR 300.173. If vessels choose to mark their vessels according to the WCPFC requirements and are fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean, they will not be required to change those markings upon entering the EPO. As proposed, this rulemaking amends 50 CFR 300.173 so that vessels may operate under the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty and be marked according to the WCPFC requirements.

Finally, regarding Section 2.1.1(b) of WCPFC CMM 2004-03, that section of the WCPFC vessel identification requirements is only applicable to vessels that do not have an IRCS and the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty vessel identification requirements do not satisfy the requirements under this exception. If a vessel requires a WCPFC Area Endorsement and does not have an IRCS, it must be marked with the Federal, State, or other documentation number preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (that is, “USA-”). The U.S. Canada Albacore Treaty regulations require vessels to be marked with the Federal or State documentation number followed by the letter “U” and the size requirements differ. If a vessel has an IRCS and requires a WCPFC Area Endorsement, it must be marked with its IRCS. As mentioned before, vessels that are marked according to the WCPFC Area Endorsement requirements may retain those vessel identification markings and operate in the EPO with a west coast HMS permit or under the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty without making changes to those vessel identification markings.

The only change from the proposed rule is the removal of paragraph (c) of 50 CFR 300.217. This paragraph provided an exception to the vessel identification requirements under § 300.217 for fishing vessels that are subject to the vessel identification requirements of §§ 300.173 or 660.704 of this title until conflicts between the requirements of this section and the requirements of those sections are reconciled. Since this rulemaking reconciles those conflicts, this exception is no longer necessary, thus it is being removed.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.

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

The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 0648-0361 and 0648-0492. Public reporting burden for vessel identification requirements under 0648-0361 is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, and public reporting burden for vessel marking requirement under 0648-0492 is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 660 are amended as follows: