This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program is 10.768. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Biorefinery Assistance is 10.865. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Rural Energy for America Program is 10.868.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” Rural Development has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Consultation will be completed at the time of the action performed.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. Additionally, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to the rule; and (3) administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before litigation against the Department or its Agencies may be initiated, in accordance with the regulations of the National Appeals Division of USDA at 7 CFR part 11.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments. Therefore, consultation with States is not required.

Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency made this determination based on the fact that this regulation only impacts those who choose to participate in the program. Small entity applicants will not be impacted to a greater extent than large entity applicants.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal Governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a tribe determines that this rule has implications of which Rural Development is not aware and would like to engage with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at AIAN@wdc.usda.gov.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection activities associated with this rule are covered under the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, OMB Number: 0570-0017.

This rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0570-0017 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizens to access Government information and services electronically.

The Agency reviewed 7 CFR 4279.2 which is composed of two paragraphs, the first of which is pertinent.

Section 4279.2(a) discusses the definitions, which has thirty-seven terms used in the Guaranteed Loanmaking. The definitions and abbreviations contained in § 4279.2 also apply to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Servicing regulations and, unless otherwise noted, the Biorefinery Assistance Loan Program and the Rural Energy for America Program. Currently, the Agency regulations do not define or otherwise address “interest”, “default interest”, “penalty interest”, or “late charges”. However, it is the Agency's policy not to pay out additional cost for default interest, penalty interest, and late charges calculated and submitted on a final report of loss claim under the Loan Note Guarantee. However, lender's Promissory Note may contain provisions for default or penalty interest, or late charges with prior Agency approval.

The Agency is revising § 4279.2(a), to address the situation discussed in the “Background” section. Specifically, the Agency is adding a paragraph in § 4279.2(a), after the term “Holder” and before the term “Interim Financing”, which will define “Interest.” The change being made by this rule is to clarify that “interest” does not include default or penalty interest, or late fees. The lender may charge the borrower these fees with prior Agency approval. Accordingly, the Agency is making the changes in this direct final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XLII, title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Discussion

We issued a third supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That third supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62649). The original NPRM (71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006) proposed to require replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines with new improved aero/fire seals. The first supplemental NPRM (73 FR 51382, September 3, 2008) proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. The second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) proposed to change the compliance time for the replacement of the aero/fire seals. The third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011) proposed to additionally prohibit the installation of certain non-fireproof thrust reverser seals.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The Boeing Company and American Airlines both support the third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments 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 third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011), for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011).

We estimate that this AD affects 803 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36390). That NPRM proposed to require replacing or modifying the upper and lower rudder PCMs.

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.

The National Transportation Safety Board fully supports the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011).

Boeing requested that we revise the Discussion section and paragraph (e) of the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011) to clarify that the corrective actions are not intended to prevent the manifold from cracking, but rather to prevent the cracking of the manifold from progressing to a rudder surface hard-over. Boeing pointed out that the secondary retention device incorporated in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010, prevents the yaw damper modulating piston assembly from shifting after a manifold failure, therefore, preventing a rudder surface hard-over. Boeing suggested removing the phrase, “if not corrected,” from the sentence, “Cracking in a rudder PCM manifold, if not corrected, could result in a failure of the upper or lower rudder PCM manifold which could result in a hard-over of the rudder surface leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed runway excursion upon landing.” In addition, Boeing suggested revising the sentence, “Although commanding full retract, pilot pedal inputs were ineffective in moving the lower rudder back to the right,” to replace the term “retract” with “right rudder,” and revising the sentence, “These events did not result in a hard-over, but created the need for a retention feature solution specified in AD 2008-13-03, Amendment 39-15566, for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes,” to clarify that the additional three events did not result in end-cap separation or a hard-over.

We agree that replacement or modification of the upper and lower rudder PCMs is intended to prevent the yaw damper modulating piston assembly from shifting after a manifold failure, consequently preventing a rudder surface hard-over. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (e) and the corresponding language in the Summary of this AD to clarify the intent. However, we cannot revise the Discussion section of this AD, because that section is not re-stated in this final rule.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36390, 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 (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2010-0255, dated December 6, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-26-5020, including Appendix 01, 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.

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-2012-0112; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-055-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.

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);

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.

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

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

History

On October 31, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Hawthorne, CA (76 FR 67103). 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 D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by revising Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA, creating additional airspace necessary for IFR departures and arrivals at the airport. This action, initiated by FAA's biennial review of the Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport airspace area, and based on results of a study conducted by the Los Angeles Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Task Force, and the Los Angeles Class B Workgroup, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also revises the airspace designation for Class D and Class E airspace, changing the city location from Los Angeles, CA, to Hawthorne, CA.

The FAA has determined 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 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 discusses 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 revises controlled airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA.

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

1. On November 17, 2009, NERC submitted the Petition requesting approval of NERC's interpretation of Requirement R1 of Commission-approved Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing). NERC developed the interpretation in response to a request for interpretation submitted to NERC by the Regional Entities Compliance Monitoring Processes Working Group (Working Group). 1 In a December 16, 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), 2 the Commission proposed to accept the NERC proposed interpretation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1, and proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard through its Reliability Standards development process to address gaps in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard highlighted by the proposed interpretation. As a result of the comments received in response to the NOPR, in this order the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to accept NERC's proposed interpretation. In addition, the Commission accepts, in part, NERC's commitments to address the concerns in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were identified by the NOPR within the Reliability Standards development process, and directs, in part, that the concerns identified by the NOPR with regard to reclosing relays be addressed within the reinitiated PRC-005 revisions.

2. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. 3 Specifically, the Commission may approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 4 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. 5

3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO, 6 and subsequently certified NERC. 7 On April 4, 2006, NERC submitted to the Commission a petition seeking approval of 107 proposed Reliability Standards. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued a Final Rule, Order No. 693, 8 approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards, including Reliability Standard PRC-005-1. In addition, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, 9 the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to 56 of the 83 approved Reliability Standards, including PRC-005-0. 10

4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that a person that is “directly and materially affected” by Bulk-Power System reliability may request an interpretation of a Reliability Standard. 11 In response, the ERO will assemble a team with relevant expertise to address the requested interpretation and also form a ballot pool. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that, within 45 days, the team will draft an interpretation of the Reliability Standard and submit it to the ballot pool. If approved by the ballot pool and subsequently by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board), the interpretation is appended to the Reliability Standard and filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for approval.

5. The purpose of PRC-005-1 is to “ensure all transmission and generation Protection Systems affecting the reliability of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are maintained and tested.” In particular, Requirement R1, requires that:

R1. Each Transmission Owner and any Distribution Provider that owns a transmission Protection System and each Generator Owner that owns a generation Protection System shall have a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the BES. The program shall include:

R1.1. Maintenance and testing intervals and their basis.

R1.2. Summary of maintenance and testing procedures.

6. NERC currently defines “Protection System” as follows: “Protective relays, associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries and DC control circuitry.”  12

7. In the NERC Petition, NERC explains that it received a request from the Working Group for an interpretation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1, Requirement R1, addressing five specific questions. Specifically, the Working Group questions and NERC proposed interpretations include:

Request 1: “Does R1 require a maintenance and testing program for the battery chargers for the `station batteries' that are considered part of the Protection System?”

Response: “While battery chargers are vital for ensuring `station batteries' are available to support Protection System functions, they are not identified within the definition of `Protection Systems.' Therefore, PRC-005-1 does not currently require maintenance and testing of battery chargers.”  13

Request 2: “Does R1 require a maintenance and testing program for auxiliary relays and sensing devices? If so, what types of auxiliary relays and sensing devices? (i.e., transformer sudden pressure relays).”

Response: “The existing definition of `Protection System' does not include auxiliary relays; therefore, maintenance and testing of such devices is not explicitly required. Maintenance and testing of such devices is addressed to the degree that an entity's maintenance and testing program for DC control circuits involves maintenance and testing of imbedded auxiliary relays. Maintenance and testing of devices that respond to quantities other than electrical quantities (for example, sudden pressure relays) are not included within Requirement R1.”

Request 3: “Does R1 require maintenance and testing of transmission line re-closing relays?”

Response: “No. `Protective Relays' refer to devices that detect and take action for abnormal conditions. Automatic restoration of transmission lines is not a `protective' function.”

Request 4: “Does R1 require a maintenance and testing program for the DC circuitry that is just the circuitry with relays and devices that control actions on breakers, etc., or does R1 require a program for the entire circuit from the battery charger to the relays to circuit breakers and all associated wiring?”

Response: “PRC-005-1 requires that entities (1) address DC control circuitry within their program, (2) have a basis for the way they address this item, and (3) execute the program. Specific additional requirements relative to the scope and/or methods are not established.”

Request 5: “For R1, what are examples of `associated communications systems' that are part of `Protection Systems' that require a maintenance and testing program?”

Response: “ ‘Associated communication systems' refer to communication systems used to convey essential Protection System tripping logic, sometimes referred to as pilot relaying or teleprotection. Examples include the following:

8. In its Petition requesting that the Commission accept the proposed interpretation, NERC recognized that greater clarity to the requirement language in PRC-005-1a is necessary to provide a complete framework for maintenance and testing of equipment necessary to ensure the reliability of the Bulk Power System. In its Petition, NERC also stated that this activity is already underway in the scope of Project 2007-17—Protection System Maintenance and Testing, coupled with the revised definition of Protection System.

9. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to accept the NERC proposed interpretation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1. In addition, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard through its Reliability Standards development process to address gaps in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were highlighted by the proposed interpretation. The specific modifications are discussed below.

10. Comments on the Commission's proposed interpretation were received by the NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), ISO/RTO Council (IRC), American Public Power Association (APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California (Joint Cities), Northwest Commenters, 14 International Transmission Company (ITC), PSEG Companies, 15 and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (MidAmerican), Constellation/CENG, 16 and Manitoba Hydro (Manitoba). In general, commenters support NERC's proposed interpretation, and oppose the further directives in the NOPR. Commenters also state that modifications to the Reliability Standards should be addressed within the NERC standards development process and that certain of the modifications are currently being addressed.

11. As a result of the comments received in response to the proposal, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to accept NERC's proposed interpretation. As discussed below,  17 the Commission accepts, in part, NERC's commitments to address the concerns in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were identified by the NOPR within the Reliability Standards development process, and directs, in part, that the concerns identified by the NOPR with regard to reclosing relays be addressed within the reinitiated PRC-005 revisions.

12. In the NOPR, the Commission noted a concern that the proposed interpretation may not include all components that serve in some protective capacity. 18 The Commission's concerns included the proposed interpretation's exclusion of auxiliary and non-electrical sensing relays. The Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop a modification to the Reliability Standard to include any component or device that is designed to detect defective lines or apparatuses or other power system conditions of an abnormal or dangerous nature, including devices designed to sense or take action against any abnormal system condition that will affect reliable operation, and to initiate appropriate control circuit actions.

13. In their comments NERC, EEI, Joint Cities, Manitoba, NRECA, ITC, MidAmerican, and PSEG expressed varying levels of disagreement with the NOPR's proposed directive. The disagreements are based on a concern that the proposed directive will create an increase in scope that will capture many items not used in BES protection. NERC is concerned the scope of this proposed directive is so broad that any device that is installed on the Bulk-Power System to monitor conditions in any fashion may be included. 19 NERC states that many of these devices are advisory in nature and should not be reflected within NERC Reliability Standards if they do not serve a necessary reliability purpose. 20 NERC does not believe it is necessary for the Commission to issue a directive to address this issue. Instead, NERC proposes to develop, either independently or in association with other technical organizations such as IEEE, one or more technical documents which:

1. Describe the devices and functions (to include sudden pressure relays which trip for fault conditions) that should address FERC's concern; and

2. Propose minimum maintenance activities for such devices and maximum maintenance intervals, including the technical basis for each. 21

14. NERC states that these technical documents will address those protective relays that are necessary for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System and will allow for differentiation between protective relays that detect faults from other devices that monitor the health of the individual equipment and are advisory in nature (e.g., oil temperature). Following development of the above-referenced document(s), NERC states that it will “propose a new or revised standard (e.g. PRC-005) using the NERC Reliability Standards development process to include maintenance of such devices, including establishment of minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance intervals.”  22 Accordingly, NERC proposes to “add this issue to the Reliability Standards issues database for inclusion in the list of issues to address the next time the PRC-005 standard is revised.”  23

15. The Commission accepts NERC's proposal, and directs NERC to file, within sixty days of publication of this Final Rule, a schedule for informational purposes regarding the development of the technical documents referenced above, including the identification of devices that are designed to sense or take action against any abnormal system condition that will affect reliable operation. NERC shall include in the informational filing a schedule for the development of the changes to the standard that NERC stated it would propose as a result of the above-referenced documents. 24 NERC should update its schedule when it files its annual work plan.

16. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that while a reclosing relay is not identified as a specific component of the Protection System, if it either is used in coordination with a Protection System to achieve or meet system performance requirements established in other Commission-approved Reliability Standards, or can exacerbate fault conditions when not properly maintained and coordinated, then excluding the maintenance and testing of these reclosing relays will result in a gap in the maintenance and testing of relays affecting the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. 25 Accordingly, the Commission proposed that NERC modify the Reliability Standard to include the maintenance and testing of reclosing relays affecting the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

17. NERC, EEI, IRC, ITC MidAmerican, NRECA, and PSEG opposed the NOPR's directive to include reclosing relays. In general, commenters state that reclosing relays used for stability purposes are already included in maintenance and testing programs, and that reclosing relays that are primarily used to minimize customer outages times and maximize availability of system components should not be included. PSEG and MidAmerican contend that the NERC standards development process should be utilized to determine the maintenance and testing of those reclosing relays that affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

18. ISO/RTO contends that the primary purpose of reclosing relays is to allow more expeditious restoration of lost components of the system, not to maintain the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Therefore, ISO/RTO maintains that automatic reclosing relays should not be subject to the NERC Reliability Standard for relay maintenance and testing. MidAmerican states that there are only limited circumstances when a reclosing relay can actually affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. MidAmerican contends that it would be overbroad for the Commission to direct a modification to the standard that encompasses all reclosing relays that can “exacerbate fault conditions when not properly maintained and coordinated,” as this would improperly include many types of reclosing relays that do not necessarily affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

19. ITC agrees with the Commission's proposal that reclosing relays that are required for system stability should be maintained and tested under Requirement R1 of PRC-005-1. However, ITC contends that since most bulk electric system automatic reclosing relay systems are applied to minimize customer outage times and to maximize availability of system components, only some “high speed” reclosing relays will affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Therefore, ITC proposes that the Commission should direct NERC to draft specific requirements or selection criteria that should be used in identifying the types of re-closing relays for maintenance and testing under Requirement R1 of PRC-005-1. 26

20. While NRECA notes that reclosing relays operate to restore, not protect a system, NRECA also notes that there are reclosing schemes that directly affect and are required for automatic stability control of the system, but that such schemes are already covered under Special Protection Schemes that are subject to reliability standards. NRECA, notes that some transmission operators do not allow reclosing relays on the bulk power system to remove the possibility of reclosing in on a permanent fault, thus avoiding further potential damage to the bulk power system. 27

21. Similarly, NERC comments that in most cases reclosing relays cannot be relied on to meet system performance requirements because of the need to consider the impact of auto-reclosing into a permanent fault; however, NERC states that applications that may exist in which automatic restoration is used to meet system performance requirements following temporary faults. NERC comments that where reclosing relays are applied to meet performance requirements in approved NERC Reliability Standards, or where automatic restoration of service is fundamental to derivation of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL), it is reasonable to require maintenance and testing of auto-reclosing relays. 28 However, NERC does not believe it is necessary for the Commission to issue a directive. 29 NERC states that the proposed revisions to Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 that are under development include maintenance of reclosing devices that are part of Special Protection Systems. 30 NERC proposes “to add the remaining concerns relating to this issue to the Reliability Standards issues database for inclusion in the list of issues to address the next time Reliability Standard PRC-005 is revised.”  31

22. As NERC and other commenters point out, reclosing relays are used in a broad range of applications; e.g., meet system performance requirements in approved Reliability Standards, derivation of IROLs, maintain system stability, minimize customer outage times, to maximize availability of system components, etc. While commenters acknowledge that reclosing relays have several applications, commenters also appear to be divided on which applications, if any, should be included in a maintenance and testing program.

23. The NOPR raised a concern that excluding the maintenance and testing of reclosing relays that can exacerbate fault conditions when not properly maintained and coordinated will result in a gap affecting Bulk-Power System reliability. 32 We agree with MidAmerican that while there are only limited circumstances when a reclosing relay can actually affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, there are some reclosing relays, e.g., whose failure to operate or that misoperate during an event due to lack of maintenance and testing, may negatively impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. 33 We agree with NERC that where reclosing relays are applied to meet performance requirements in approved NERC Reliability Standards, or where automatic restoration of service is fundamental to derivation of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL), it is reasonable to require maintenance and testing of auto-reclosing relays.

24. In the NOPR we stated that a misoperating or miscoordinated reclosing relay may result in the reclosure of a Bulk-Power System element back onto a fault or that a misoperating or miscoordinated reclosing relay may fail to operate after a fault has been cleared, thus failing to restore the element to service. As a result, the reliability of the Bulk-Power System would be affected. In addition, misoperated or miscoordinated relays may result in damage to the Bulk-Power System. For example, a misoperation or miscoordination of a reclosing relay causing the reclosing of Bulk-Power System facilities into a permanent fault can subject generators to excessive shaft torques and winding stresses and expose circuit breakers to systems conditions less than optimal for correct operation, potentially damaging the circuit breaker. 34

25. While some commenters argue that reclosing relays do not affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, the record supports our concern. For example, we note NERC's concern regarding the “* * * need to consider the impact of autoreclosing into a permanent fault.” We also note NRECA's comments that “* * * some transmission operators do not allow reclosing on the bulk electric system facilities to remove the opportunity of closing in on a permanent fault” and “* * * by its [automatic reclosing] use a utility understands the potential for further damage that may occur by reclosing.”  35 Because the misoperation or miscommunication of reclosing relays can exacerbate fault conditions, we find that reclosing relays that may affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System should be maintained and tested. 36

26. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is important to maintain and test reclosing relays that may affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. We agree with ITC that specific requirements or selection criteria should be used to identify reclosing relays that affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. As MidAmerican suggests, the standard should be modified, through the Reliability Standards development process, to provide the Transmission Owner, Generator Owner, and Distribution Provider with the discretion to include in a Protection System maintenance and testing program only those reclosing relays that the entity identifies as having an affect on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

27. We note that the original project to revise Reliability Standard PRC-005 failed a recirculation ballot in July of 2011. The project was subsequently reinitiated to continue the efforts to develop Reliability Standard PRC-005-2. Given that the project to draft proposed revisions to Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 continues in this reinitiated effort, and the importance of maintaining and testing reclosing relays, we direct NERC to include maintenance and testing of reclosing relays that can affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, as discussed above, within these reinitiated efforts to revise Reliability Standard PRC-005. 37

28. In the NOPR, the Commission explained its understanding that a maintenance and testing program for DC control circuitry would include all components of DC control circuitry necessary for ensuring Reliable Operation of the Bulk-Power System, and that not establishing the specific requirements of such a maintenance and testing program results in a gap in the maintenance and testing of Protection System components. 38

29. Joint Cities, MidAmerican, and NRECA expressed concern that the NOPR's directive is too broad and unnecessarily burdensome. NERC agrees that maintenance and testing should be required for all DC control circuitry. 39 NERC further stated that draft standard PRC-005-2 being developed in Project 2007-17 “includes extensive, specific maintenance activities (with maximum maintenance intervals) related to the DC control circuits.”  40 The Commission accepts NERC's commitment to include the development of specific requirements of such a maintenance and testing program described above in Project 2007-17. 41

30. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency. 42 The Commission submits reporting and recording keeping requirements to OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 43

31. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in Order No. 693, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the current Final Rule. This Final Rule accepts an interpretation of the currently approved Reliability Standard. The interpretation of the current Reliability Standard at issue in this final rule is not expected to change the reporting burden or the information collection requirements. The informational filing required of NERC is part of currently active collection FERC-725 and does not require additional approval by OMB.

32. We will submit this final rule to OMB for informational purposes only.

33. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 44 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended. 45 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 46 The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business. 47 The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours. 48 The RFA is not implicated by this Final Rule because the interpretation accepted herein does not modify the existing burden or reporting requirements. Because this Final Rule accepts an interpretation of the currently approved Reliability Standard, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

35. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

36. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

38. This Final Rule is effective March 14, 2012. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless the context indicates otherwise.

EPA is taking final action to approve new rule ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010. Montana adopted this rule on May 14, 2010 and it became State effective on May 28, 2010. We are also taking final action to approve all references to ARM 17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. Specifically, the following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) “except when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745” and (2) “except as provided in ARM 17.8.745,” the phrase “and 17.8.745” in ARM 17.8.743(1) and the phrase “the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit in ARM 17.8.864(1)(b). These references were adopted on December 6, 2002, and became State effective on December 27, 2002. EPA is also taking final action to disapprove the phrase “asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers” in new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003. This rule was adopted on December 6, 2002, and became State effective on December 27, 2002.

ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010, and all references to ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's minor New Source Review (NSR) regulations. ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's minor NSR regulations.

EPA proposed an action for the above SIP revision submittals on September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted comments from the public on this proposal from September 27, 2011, until October 26, 2011. A summary of the comments received and our evaluation thereof is discussed in section III below. In the proposed rule, we described our basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the proposed rule, and sections III and IV of this preamble, for additional information regarding this final action.

EPA reviews a SIP revision submission for its compliance with the Act and EPA regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted Program based upon the regulations and associated record that have been submitted and are currently before EPA. In order for EPA to ensure that Montana has a Program that meets the requirements of the CAA, the State must demonstrate the Program is as stringent as the Act and the implementing regulations discussed in this notice. For example, EPA must have sufficient information to make a finding that the new Program will ensure protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the Montana SIP control strategies, as required by section 110(l) of the Act.

The provisions in these submittals were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act. Therefore, the final action to disapprove these submittals does not trigger a sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan clock. See CAA section 179(a).

The Amended Consent Decree in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 09-cv-02148 (D. Col.), as amended, currently provides that EPA will take final action on the State's SIP revision submittals by October 31, 2011. See Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for EPA's Final Action of Item Number 11 on Exhibit A to the Consent Decree, filed with the Court on March 30, 2011 (Doc. 33).

The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR permits. States may customize the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program meets minimum requirements.

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”

The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered as “any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.” A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), lead, nitrogen oxides (NO X ) or any other requirement of the Act. Montana's demonstration of noninterference (see docket), as submitted to EPA on June 25, 2010, and our Technical Support Document (see docket) provide sufficient basis that new section ARM 17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 25, 2010, will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Further details are provided in sections IV and V of this action.

The State's May 28, 2003 submittal included ARM 17.8.743, which was a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes those sources that are required to obtain a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, except lead, 1 must obtain a Montana air quality permit except as provided in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before constructing, installing, modifying or operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b) also requires asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral screens that have the potential to emit more than 15 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, other than lead, to obtain a Montana air quality permit.

This notice contains EPA's final action on Montana rules relating to the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011 rulemaking, EPA approved of all of new section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” where the de minimis permitting threshold for those sources was changed from five tons per year to 15 tons per year. During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the new permit threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter from EPA to the State of Montana in the docket.) Since for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers this revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces the stringency of the current SIP approved regulations, which has a threshold of five tons, we stated that Montana must provide an analysis showing that this new rule will not interfere with compliance with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana did not provide any analysis or demonstration that the increased permit threshold, from five tons per year to 15 tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers meets these criteria. At the request of the State, we took no action on the phrase “asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers” in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR 40237. EPA is taking final action to disapprove the May 28, 2003, SIP revision request for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. If the State submits a new SIP with the appropriate 110(l) analysis, we would evaluate such a new SIP and analysis.

The State's June 25, 2010 submittal included new rule ARM 17.8.745. This revision request for ARM 17.8.745, which supercedes the State's May 28, 2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, creates an exemption from the requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than five tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met.

During the State's 1996 and 1999 rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the de minimis level specified in the earlier versions of the regulation we are proposing action on today (see letters from EPA to the State of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 1999 and October 9, 2002 in the docket.) ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption from the requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than 15 tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met. Since this new rule reduced the stringency of the current SIP approved regulations, EPA indicated that the State must provide an analysis showing that the new rule will not interfere with compliance with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana's May 28, 2003 submittal did not provide any analysis or demonstration that the new rule (ARM 17.8.745) meets these requirements. In EPA's final July 8, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 40237), which approved revisions to ARM 17.8.7, no action was taken on Montana's de minimis provision in ARM 17.8.745. Since EPA took no action on ARM 17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we took no action on all references to ARM 17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7.

EPA did not receive comments on our September 26, 2011 Federal Register proposed action regarding the partial approval and partial disapproval of Montana's SIP revisions to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010, all references to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003 and ARM 17.8.743(1)(B) as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003.

We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the following: (1) The statutory requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to include a minor New Source Review (NSR) program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved; (2) the regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, including section 51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the statutory requirements under CAA section 110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere (“noninterference”) with attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress (ROP), RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the approval of new section ARM 17.8.745 would not violate section 110(l) of the CAA (see docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100); this is also referred to as a “demonstration of noninterference” with attainment and maintenance under CAA section 110(l). In addition to the State's demonstration submitted on June 25, 2010, EPA conducted its own analysis utilizing SIP-approved attainment plans, past rulemakings, stipulations, consent decrees, air modeling data and air monitoring data. In EPA's proposed notice (76 FR 59338), we considered the State's demonstration of noninterference, our own analysis, the nature of the permitting requirement, its potential impact on the air quality in the area and the air quality of the area in which the permitting requirements apply. We analyzed this information pollutant by pollutant in order to make a determination that new rule 17.8.745 is consistent with CAA requirements; in particular, it's impact on compliance with NAAQS standards. The scope and rigor of the demonstration of noninterference conducted in this notice is appropriate given the air quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision on air quality and the pollutants affected.

The State's technical support document (TSD) (see docket) contains the State's regulatory history of the de minimis rule, effects of the de minimis rule on attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS and assesses air quality trends, current air quality conditions and future projected air quality conditions. The demonstration analyses the effects of the new rule pollutant by pollutant in past and current nonattainment areas utilizing monitoring data, maintenance plans, modeling data, emission inventories, federal implementation plan requirements and past and future projected permits.

EPA is disapproving the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each implementation plan include a program to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources, including a permit program as required by parts C and D of title I of the Act, as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Parts C and D, which pertain to PSD and nonattainment, respectively, address major NSR programs for stationary sources, and the permitting program for “nonmajor” (or “minor”) stationary sources is addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. We generally refer to the latter program as the “minor NSR” program. A minor stationary source is a source whose “potential to emit” is lower than the major source applicability threshold for a particular pollutant defined in the applicable major NSR program.

Therefore, we evaluated the submitted revisions and new rules using the federal regulations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which require each state to include a minor NSR program in its SIP.

In addition, we reviewed the State's regulations for compliance with the Act. Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing SIP requirements (see section 110(l) and 193 of the Act).

EPA is disapproving the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which contains a modification size cutoff (15 tons per year) that the State proposes as de minimis for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers. Fifteen tons per year represents the major modification significance level for one criteria pollutant (PM 10 ) and exceeds the significance level for another criteria pollutant (PM 2.5 ) as well as for several non-criteria pollutants. It also exceeds the major source threshold for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Because of these reasons, EPA determines that the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in the sense of having a trivial environmental effect. EPA has agreed in several rulemaking actions that certain activities with emissions of five tons per year or less may be considered “insignificant.” However, EPA never before denoted emissions increases as high as 15 tons per year as de minimis. Since the State did not provide an analysis as to why emission increases as high as 15 tons per year should be considered as having a trivial environmental effect, EPA finds no basis for approving this revision. Therefore, EPA lacks sufficient available information to determine that the requested revision to increase the de minimis permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers from five tons per year to 15 tons per year would not interfere with attainment and RFP of the NAAQS as required by CAA Section 110(l), or any other requirement of the Act.

Based on the above discussion, EPA finds that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.745 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act (see proposed notice for this action and TSD for basis); and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve ARM 17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010 by the State of Montana.

We are approving new section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we are also approving all references to ARM 17.8.745. This includes: The phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) “except when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745” and (2) “except as provided in ARM 17.8.745” and the phrase “and 17.8.745” in 17.8.743(1), submitted on May 28, 2003; and the phrase “the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit” in 17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003.

Based on the above discussion, EPA is finds no basis to determine that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act; and thus, is not approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to disapprove the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted on May 28, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

On October 6, 2011 (76 FR 62004), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.

We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment as follows.

Carla D. Takemoto, California Air Resources Board, letter dated October 7, 2011 clarified that while amendments to CARB Test Method 310 was included in the January 28, 2011 submittal package to EPA, CARB did not intend for Method 310 to be acted on as a SIP revision. The amended test method replaces a previous version of Method 310 that was separately approved from the SIP process by EPA.

EPA agrees with CARB's clarification that the August 6, 2010 version of Method 310 replaces the previously approved Method 310. We also agree that the revised test method can be used to show compliance with California's Consumer Products rule. EPA plans to approve the revised test method in a separate action that does not incorporate it into the SIP.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

On October 6, 2011 (76 FR 62002), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

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

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

The amendatory instruction for paragraph (b) Driving conditions in § 395.1 Scope of the rules in this part incorrectly referenced revising paragraph (b)(1)'s introductory text. FMCSA intended to completely revise paragraph (b)(1). An unintended edit to the instruction made just before publication caused the instruction to be inaccurate. FMCSA intended for the current paragraph's subparagraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) to be removed entirely. See the discussion of the Agency's intentions in the section-by-section analysis on 76 FR 81165 col. 3. This correction notice corrects the instruction for publishers of public and private editions of title 49 CFR chapter III, subchapter B—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). Correcting the amendatory language provides guidance to legal editors of the FMCSRs on the proper codification of the December 27, 2011 rule. This notice does not change, in any manner, the regulatory text intended.

In FR Doc. 2011-32696, appearing on page 81134 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 27, 2011, the following correction is made.

The final rule for Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68642). The final measures in that action included: A tiered limited access program for the Atlantic mackerel fishery; an open access incidental catch permit for mackerel; an update to essential fish habitat designations for all life stages of mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish; and the establishment of a recreational allocation for mackerel. Details regarding the measures in Amendment 11 are in the final rule and are not repeated here.

The final regulations in Amendment 11 revised portions of 50 CFR 648.4; the new regulatory text will be effective on March 1, 2012. The amendatory language for § 648.4 on page 68653 of the final rule has instructions for a revision of paragraph § 648.4 (a)(5)(iii). However, the amendatory language should have also included instructions for a revision of § 648.4 (a)(5)(iv) and the addition of § 648.4 (a)(5)(v). The text for these paragraphs is listed on page 68655 of the final rule. As published, the error in the amendatory language would result in the removal of § 648.4 (a)(5)(iv) and § 648.4 (a)(5)(v) on March 1, 2012. These paragraphs describe the Atlantic mackerel incidental catch permit and the MSB party and charter boat permit. This correction adjusts the amendatory instruction 2 for § 648.4 to allow for the designation of paragraphs (a)(5)(iv) and (v) in time for the March 1, 2012, effective date. This correction does not change the intent or application of the measures described in the proposed and final rule.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action because notice and comment would be unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest. Notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest because this action simply makes the text of the codified regulations consistent with the text in the final rule, and makes corrections to accurately reflect the intent of the final rule. This correction eliminates inconsistencies between the regulatory text contained in the final rule and the codified regulations, and therefore eliminates any confusion that the inconsistency might create for the public. No aspect of this action is controversial and no change in operating practices in the fishery is required from those intended in the final rule.

For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If this rule is not implemented by March 1, 2012, two paragraphs of regulations regarding permit requirements would be removed, which could cause confusion and would be inconsistent with the final rule.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. are inapplicable.

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

In the Federal Register of November 7, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-28772, on page 68653, in the second column, amendatory instruction 2 is corrected to read as follows: