In the first stage of its eFiling initiative, the FLRA enabled parties to use eFiling to file requests for Federal Service Impasses Panel assistance in the resolution of negotiation impasses. See 77 FR 5987 (Feb. 7, 2012). The second stage of the FLRA's eFiling initiative provided parties with an option to use the FLRA's eFiling system to electronically file 11 types of documents in cases that are filed with the FLRA's three-Member adjudicatory body, the Authority. Parties may now eFile such documents.

The third and last stage of the FLRA's eFiling initiative is the subject of this final rule. In this stage, parties will be able to use the FLRA's eFiling system to file certain documents involved in representation (part 2422) and unfair labor practice (part 2423) proceedings. This rule modifies the FLRA's existing regulations to allow for eFiling of the documents described below. The rule also clarifies some of the procedural regulations as required under the Plain Writing Act of 2010, 5 U.S.C. 301 note. In addition, the rule expressly sets forth the Authority's existing practice of requiring parties to serve Regional Directors with applications for review filed pursuant to 5 CFR 2422.31.

As the FLRA's eFiling procedures develop, the revisions set forth in this action may be evaluated and revised further.

Sectional analyses of the amendments and revisions to part 2422, Representation Proceedings, part 2423, Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, and part 2429, Miscellaneous and General Requirements, are as follows:

These sections are amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

This section is amended to state that petitioners may file a representation petition electronically through use of the FLRA's eFiling system on the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov . Paragraph (a) of this section is amended to state that a petitioner should provide a fax number and email address (if known) for each entity listed.

This section is amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (b) of this section is amended to state that if a petitioner files a petition electronically through the use of the FLRA's eFiling system at the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov or by facsimile transmission, then it is not necessary to file an original copy with the Region, but the petitioner assumes responsibility for the Region's receipt of the petition.

Paragraph (c) of this section is amended to state that a petition filed electronically through the use of the FLRA's eFiling system at the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov or by facsimile transmission is deemed received and docketed by the Region on the business day the Region receives it up until midnight local time. If received after midnight local time, it is deemed received and docketed on the next business day.

These sections are amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (b) of this section is amended to provide for the filing of a cross-petition electronically through the use of the FLRA's eFiling system at the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov or by facsimile transmission.

These sections are amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines. In addition, section 2422.31(a) is amended to set forth the Authority's existing practice of requiring parties to serve Regional Directors with applications for review.

This section is amended to state that part 2423 is applicable to any unfair labor practice cases that are pending or filed with the FLRA on or after July 25, 2012.

These sections are amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (a) is amended to provide for filing a charge electronically through the use of the eFiling system on the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov or by facsimile transmission. In addition, if known, the Charging Party must indicate the facsimile numbers and email addresses for all parties and contact persons.

This section is amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (b) is amended to provide for the dates of filing for charges filed electronically through the use of the eFiling system on the FLRA's Web site at www.flra.gov or by facsimile transmission. A charge filed by either of these methods is deemed filed on the day it is received in a Region up until midnight local time. If received after midnight it is deemed received on the next business day.

These sections are amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (c) is amended to provide for an option for filing an appeal of a Regional Director's decision to dismiss a charge by email to ogc.appeals@flra.gov.

Paragraph (d) is amended to provide for an option for filing a request for an extension of time to file an appeal by email to ogc.appeals@flra.gov.

This section is amended to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act guidelines.

Paragraph (f) is amended to add three documents (12-14) to the list of documents that a party may file alternatively by electronic means through the use of the FLRA's eFiling service: (12) petition under 5 CFR part 2422; (13) cross-petition under 5 CFR part 2422; and (14) unfair labor practice charge under 5 CFR part 2423.

Paragraph (g) is amended to add an appeal of a dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge under 5 CFR part 2423 as document that a Charging Party may file by facsimile transmission.

The FLRA is an independent regulatory agency, and as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866.

The FLRA is an independent regulatory agency, and as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13132.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chairman of the FLRA has determined that this rule, as amended, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because this rule applies only to federal agencies, federal employees, and labor organizations representing those employees.

This rule change will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This action is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The amended regulations contain no additional information collection or record-keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FLRA amends 5 CFR Parts 2422, 2423, and 2429, as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating the handling of domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorize amendment of the order through this informal rulemaking action.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) made changes to section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders if certain criteria are met.

AMS has considered the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and other relevant matters, and has determined that amending the order as proposed by the committee could appropriately be accomplished through informal rulemaking.

The committee's proposed amendments were recommended following deliberations at public meetings on October 30, 2008; October 29, 2009; and February 25, 2010. The proposed amendments were first submitted to AMS on May 29, 2009. After further discussions with AMS, the committee submitted revised proposals to AMS on March 2, 2010.

A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendments was issued on June 6, 2011, and published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34618). No comments were received. A proposed rule and referendum order was issued on November 3, 2011, and published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69678). This document directed that a referendum among date producers be conducted during the period January 16, 2012 through February 3, 2012, to determine whether they favor the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of the producers voting, or two-thirds of the volume of dates represented by voters in the referendum. The amendments recommended by the committee were favored by more than 92 percent of those voting in the referendum and by more than 99 percent of the volume represented in the referendum.

The amendments included in this final rule will: (1) Authorize the committee to recommend regulatory exemptions for certain date varieties if market conditions warrant such exemption; (2) Increase the terms of office for committee members and alternates from two to three years; (3) Authorize the committee to conduct business by means of telephone or video conference technologies; (4) Authorize the committee to collect interest charges and late fees on delinquent assessment payments; and (5) Authorize the committee to build and maintain an operating monetary reserve not to exceed one year's average expenses.

An amended marketing agreement was subsequently provided to all date handlers in the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was approved by handlers representing more than 50 percent of the volume of dates handled by all handlers covered under the order.

Two amendments concerning periodic continuance referenda and committee member term limits recommend by AMS were not approved by producers in referendum.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 79 producers of dates in the production area and 8 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the 2010 crop yield was approximately 7,080 pounds, or 3.54 tons, of dates per acre. NASS estimates that the 2010 grower price was approximately $0.585 per pound, or $1,170 per ton. Thus, the value of date production in 2010 averaged about $4,142 per acre (7,080 pounds per acre times $0.585 per pound). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 181 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $4,142 per acre equals 181.1 acres). According to committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm fewer than 181 acres. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities. According to data from the committee, the majority of handlers of California dates may also be considered small entities.

The amendments will authorize the committee to recommend regulatory exemptions for dates by variety, provide for three years terms of office for committee members, provide for committee meetings by telephone and other means of communication, authorize an operating monetary reserve not to exceed one year's average expenses, and authorize the collection of interest and late payment charges on delinquent assessment payments.

Conforming changes to the order's administrative rules and regulations will be made to facilitate implementation of the amendments approved by voters in the referendum. Specifically, the committee's nomination and polling procedures will be modified to require that balloting materials be provided to producers by June 15 of every third year.

The amendments were unanimously recommended at public meetings held on October 30, 2008; October 29, 2009; and February 25, 2010. The committee believes that each of their amendments will benefit producers and handlers of all sizes.

The amendment granting authority to temporarily exempt certain date varieties from regulation will allow the committee to determine whether the costs of collecting assessments and reports on individual varieties are warranted. Handler burden related to those functions will be reduced for exempted varieties. Decreases in handler assessment obligation and reporting costs could be passed on to producers. Administrative costs related to enforcing regulatory compliance for those varieties will also be reduced.

Producer and handler participation in committee nominations is expected to improve when member terms of office are extended from two to three years. Extending the terms of office will afford the committee more time to identify and develop potential new members between committee selections. Coordinating committee nomination periods with those of other industry programs is expected to reduce voter confusion and increase the number of ballots returned, thus improving producer and handler representation on the committee.

Adding authority for alternative meeting formats is expected to improve participation in committee deliberations by industry members of all sizes. Using alternative meeting formats will minimize the time that committee members are required to be away from their individual businesses. Authorizing the chairperson to determine the format for each meeting will ensure that critical committee business is addressed appropriately. By providing greater flexibility for meeting attendance and participation, the committee hopes to benefit from the input of a greater number of interested persons whose perspectives and ideas could improve the marketing of California dates, which would in turn benefit both producers and handlers.

Authorizing the committee to impose interest and late payment charges on delinquent assessments is intended to encourage handlers to make payments on a timely basis. There will be no additional cost to handlers who comply with the order's assessment requirements. Timely assessment payments allow the committee to make and keep financial obligations with regard to operation of its programs, including marketing and promotion, which are intended to benefit all producers and handlers.

Adding authority to build and maintain an operating reserve equal to one year's average expenses is intended to allow the committee to recommend increases to their assessment rate in order to gradually build the reserve. During high production years, excess assessments could be added to the reserve until the fund's limit is reached. The larger operating reserve will help ensure that the committee has sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations and maintain critical marketing programs, even during short crop years. Such stability is expected to allow the committee to conduct programs that will benefit all entities, regardless of size.

The changes to the order's nomination and polling regulations are intended to facilitate implementation of the proposed amendments.

Where measurable, the costs outlined in this analysis are expected to be proportional to the size of business, so smaller businesses should not be unduly burdened. Benefits associated with improved efficiencies and greater representation on the committee should accrue to all entities, regardless of size.

Alternatives to these proposals included making no changes at this time. However, the changes are necessary to update administration of the order to reflect current industry practices, provide consistent funding that will enable the committee to maintain valuable marketing programs, and provide greater opportunity for committee participation.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this proceeding are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

AMS 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 citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The committee's meetings, at which these proposals were discussed, were widely publicized throughout the date industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the meetings were public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34618). Copies of the rule were mailed or sent via facsimile to all committee members and date handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending July 14, 2011, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received in response to the proposed order amendments. Further, no comments were received in response to the proposed conforming changes to the administrative regulations.

A proposed rule and referendum order was then issued on November 3, 2011, and published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69678). This document directed that a referendum among date producers be conducted during the period January 16, 2012, through February 3, 2012, to determine whether they favor the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of the producers voting, or two-thirds of the volume of dates represented by voters in the referendum. All of the proposed amendments were favored by more than 92 percent of those voting in the referendum and by more than 99 percent of the volume represented in the referendum.

An amended marketing agreement was subsequently provided to all date handlers in the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was approved by handlers representing more than 50 percent of the volume of dates handled by all handlers covered under the order.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon the Basis of the Rulemaking Record.

The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing agreement and order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

1. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

2. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, regulate the handling of dates produced or packed in the production area (Riverside County, California) in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing agreement and order;

3. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, are limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

4. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of dates produced or packed in the production area; and

5. All handling of dates produced or packed in the production area as defined in the marketing agreement and order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

(b) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:

1. The “Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, California,” has been signed by handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping dates covered under the order) who during the period October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, handled not less than 50 percent of the volume of such dates covered under the order; and

2. The issuance of this amendatory order, amending the aforesaid order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the producers who participated in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, have been engaged within the production area in the production of such dates, such producers having also produced for market at least two-thirds of the volume of such commodity represented in the referendum.

It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of dates grown or packed in Riverside County, California, shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby proposed to be amended as follows:

The provisions of Proposals Number 1 through 5 of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on November 5, 2011, and published in the Federal Register (76 FR 69678) on November 9, 2011, will be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order and are set forth in full herein.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 987 is amended as follows:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6525). The original NPRM (76 FR 64857, October 19, 2011) proposed to require an inspection to determine if a certain oxygen cylinder and regulator assembly (CRA) is installed and the replacement of affected oxygen CRAs. The SNPRM proposed to change the compliance time in paragraph (g) of the SNPRM.

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

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (77 FR 6525, February 8, 2012), or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 79 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $29,145, or $255 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 that 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.

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 SNPRM (77 FR 6525, February 8, 2012), 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 Feb. 3, 2012, at 77 FR 5420, the Federal Register published our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to aft crosstube part number (P/N) 412-321-104 and P/N 412-321-304, installed on Agusta Model AB412 and AB412EP and Bell Model 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require certain recurring visual, dimensional, and fluorescent penetrant inspections of each aft crosstube. If there is a crack, the NPRM proposed to require, before further flight, replacing any cracked aft crosstube with an airworthy aft crosstube. The NPRM also proposed to require establishing a life limit for one of the affected part-numbered aft crosstubes (as the later part-numbered aft crosstube already has limits established) and creating a component history card or equivalent record for aft crosstube part number (P/N) 412-321-304. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a crosstube, collapse of the landing gear, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for minor editorial changes. These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We have reviewed AAI Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AA-07109, dated April 3, 2008, which specifies recurring inspections and maintenance of each aft crosstube, P/N 412-321-104, installed as an approved part by Bell during production, and P/N 412-321-304, installed under STC SR01052AT, on Bell Model 412, 412EP, and 412CF and Agusta Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters. This ASB specifies establishing a high aft crosstube, P/N 412-321-304, “takeoff/landing” life limit of 20,000. Also, this ASB specifies that operators should follow helicopter towing instructions to prevent crosstube damage or failure as a result of ground handling or towing.

We have also reviewed Bell ASB No. 412-08-129, dated May 12, 2008, for Bell Model 412 and 412EP helicopters, serial numbers 33001 through 33213, 36001 and subsequent, with an aft crosstube P/N 412-321-104 installed. Bell issued its ASB “to achieve complete distribution of AA-07109 vendor bulletin to the current affected model distribution list.”

We estimate that this AD will affect 115 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We also estimate that the required actions will take about:

• 1 hour to create a component history card or equivalent record and determine and record the number of accumulated takeoffs and landings for each affected aft crosstube;

• 3 hours to prepare the area for a visual inspection;

• 1/2 hour to do the repetitive visual inspections, assuming 14 repetitive visual inspections per year;

• 1 hour to do a dimensional inspection of the skid gear, assuming 3 inspections per year;

• 24 hours to prepare and fluorescent penetrant inspect the aft crosstube, assuming 2 inspections per year; and

• 10 hours to replace an aft crosstube, if necessary, assuming 3 aft crosstubes are replaced.

The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $9,315 per aft crosstube. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators to be $636,545.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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:

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 published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3187). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking, corrosion damage, and any other irregularity of the lower main sill inner chord and surrounding structure, and repair if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we revise the wording in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) to clarify that the AD terminates only the repetitive inspections required by the NPRM. Boeing also stated that the inspection area designated in the NPRM may be subject to other repetitive inspections following repairs done per another AD.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we confirm that the post-repair inspection program is not mandatory.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) be revised to include the use of the “proactive” doubler installations as a terminating action. Delta stated that paragraph (g) of the NPRM authorizes only the on-condition repair as a terminating action. Delta requested that we include a separate paragraph to define the terminating action provisions.

We agree that clarification is needed. Other ADs require inspections of certain structure covered by this AD. The certification basis of the airplane includes damage tolerance inspections for these repairs, and they are already available in the service repair manual (SRM). The required SRM repairs include post-repair inspections. These inspections are required by the regulations identified in the certification basis of the airplane and other operational rules, and not by this AD. We have clarified the terminating action for the inspections in this AD by revising paragraph (g) of this AD and adding paragraph (h) to this AD. To further clarify, the “proactive” doubler installation and the on-condition repair both terminate the inspections.

American Airlines (American) requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) to clearly state how the compliance times for airplanes covered by the applicability of the NPRM are affected by the installation of winglets. American stated that many operators have affected airplanes by this AD which have been modified to have winglets.

Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated it has reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0228, dated July 28, 2011, and the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) as it relates to the APB winglet supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE and determined that the installation of the winglet STC does not affect this proposed rule. APB noted that data to support this comment is available from APB upon request from the FAA. We infer that APB is requesting that we clarify the effect of the STC on the proposed rule.

We agree to clarify. The installation of winglets as specified in STC ST01920SE does not affect accomplishment of the requirements of this AD, and an AMOC is not necessary for a “change in product” AMOC approval request. We have therefore added this provision in new Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

American requested that we revise the “Differences Between Proposed AD and the Service Information” paragraph of the preamble, and paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) to allow re-sequencing of “open-up” and “close-up” steps only, while maintaining the sequence for inspection and repair. American stated that allowing re-sequencing of those steps would reduce the number of AMOC requests for tasks that do not address the unsafe condition.

We partially agree with the request. Because the “Differences Between Proposed AD and the Service Information” paragraph is not restated in the final rule, we have not made any change to the AD in that regard. However, we have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD (referred to as paragraph (h)(2) in the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012)) to state that “open-up” and “close-up” steps may be done in any practical order.

We incorrectly included a reference to 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45 in paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012). That reference has been removed from this AD.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 3187, January 23, 2012).

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 377 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.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2012 (77 FR 13230). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The corrective actions include repairing or replacing the sidewall with a new sidewall. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 13230, March 6, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $170.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $8,850, for a cost of $9,020 per product. 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 that 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.

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 (77 FR 13230, March 6, 2012), 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 February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6520). 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 received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 6520, February 8, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have revised the heading and wording for paragraph (h) of this AD. This change does not affect the intent of that paragraph.

We reviewed the available, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD 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 (77 FR 6520, February 8, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 6520, February 8, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $170 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operator to be $680 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $170, for a cost of $425 per product. 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 that 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.

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 (77 FR 6520, February 8, 2012), 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:

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

On September 29, 2011, we issued AD 2011-21-13 (76 FR 68299, November 4, 2011), for all ECD model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. Our AD 2011-21-13 was based on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2010-0268-E, dated December 21, 2010 (EAD 2010-0268-E), requiring the introduction of additional RFM procedures to monitor the electrical power display generator amperes (GEN AMPS) on the Vehicle and Engine Multifunction Display (VEMD) during switching of the generator. EASA advised that some ECD MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters detected an excessive current flow when one generator was deactivated. This situation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the generator, likely resulting in loss of electrical power and inducing loss of systems that are necessary for safe flight. To address this unsafe condition, AD 2011-21-13 requires revising the “Emergency and Malfunction Procedures” and the “Performance Data” sections of the RFM by inserting three temporary pages from ECD Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008, dated December 20, 2010 (MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008). Those pages require operators to insert pages into the RFM, which provide that pilots visually monitor the power display GEN AMPS on the VEMD for too high of a current when a generator is shut down, such as during the ENGINE POWER CHECK. These revised RFM provisions provide for switching off the two main electrical buses on the overhead panel to prevent the operating generator from being damaged when the other generator is shut down. We issued AD 2011-21-13 to prevent failure of a generator, which could result in loss of electrical power, loss of systems necessary for flight safety, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Before we issued AD 2011-21-13 (76 FR 68299, November 4, 2011), EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2011-0162, dated August 30, 2011 (AD 2011-0162). In AD 2011-0162, EASA states that ECD has developed a modification to prevent the possibility of too high current flow when a generator is deactivated, and updated the RFM procedures accordingly. This EASA AD requires the RFM changes introduced by EAD 2010-0268-E to be removed. The EASA AD also requires modification of the Generator Relay left-hand and right-hand After Junction Boxes by removing diodes, CR10007 and CR10008, respectively, on ECD MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers 9004 through 9500. Through this AD action, the FAA is requiring this same modification to the After Junction Boxes in helicopters registered in the United States and removal of the same pages from the RFM that were introduced by AD 2011-21-13.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the FRG, EASA, their technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

We reviewed ECD ASB MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2011. The ASB describes procedures for removing two diodes on the generator relays in the After Junction Boxes. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2011-0162 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

This AD requires, within 30 days, removing temporary pages from the RFM that were inserted for AD 2011-21-13. This AD also requires modifying Generator Relay left-hand and right-hand After Junction Boxes by removing diodes, CR10007 and CR10008.

The EASA AD requires compliance by September 6, 2011; the FAA requires compliance within 30 days from the effective date of the AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 232 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Removing the diodes from the after junction boxes will require 2 work hours at an average labor cost of $85 per hour and incorporating the changes into the RFM will require .5 work hour for a total cost per operator of $213 and a cost to the entire U.S. fleet of $49,416.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 30 days.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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, I certify that 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

On January 20, 2012, at 77 FR 2926, the Federal Register published our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, with a GCU, part-number (P/N) 1152550-3, installed. That NPRM proposed to require, within 6 months, removing the No. 1 and No. 2 GCU, P/N 1152550-3, modifying the electrical connectors A13P1 and A14P1 by installing wiring to the power distribution panel, and installing a No. 1 and No. 2 GCU with P/N 1152550-4 or 1152550-5. Both GCUs must have identical P/Ns on the same helicopter. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the overvoltage protection of the GCU, degraded performance of the electrical power generation and distribution systems, a fire, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2009-0042, dated February 25, 2009 (AD 2009-0042), to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, all serial numbers (S/Ns) except S/Ns 31002, 31003, 31004, and 31007. EASA advises that laboratory tests performed on a new GCU model under development have shown a potential fault in the overvoltage protection of currently installed GCUs, P/N 1152550-3. EASA also advises that this condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the helicopter's electrical power generation and distribution system functionalities.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, the EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the EASA and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. We have determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed, except for a typographical correction in the Related Service Information paragraph of the NPRM, which referred to the EASA AD as “2009-0048” instead of “2009-0042.” This change is consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The EASA AD does not apply to certain serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, whereas this AD applies to all serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.

Agusta S.p.A. issued Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-133, Rev. A, dated March 17, 2009 (BT), for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, S/Ns 31005 up to S/N 31143, except for S/Ns 31007, 31037, 31038, 31094; S/N 31112; S/Ns 31146 up to S/N 31148; S/N 31155; S/Ns 31201 up to S/N 31218; and S/Ns 41001 up to S/N 41022, except S/N 41007; with a GCU, P/N 1152550-3. This BT specifies, within 6 months from receipt of the BT, removing GCU, P/N 1152550-3, modifying electrical connector A13P1 and A14P1, and replacing each GCU with an airworthy GCU, P/N 1152550-4 or 1152550-5, to improve electrical power generation and distribution system functionalities. EASA classified this BT as mandatory and issued AD 2009-0042 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We estimate that this AD will affect 72 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours to perform the required actions of this AD per helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, and required parts will cost about $42,384 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost to be $42,724 per helicopter and the total cost impact of the AD for U.S. operators to be $3,076,128.

According to the Agusta service information 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 by Agusta. Accordingly, 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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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:

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 published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82210). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection for the part number of the fuse pin, and replacement of the pin if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 82210, December 30, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing and United Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 82210, December 30, 2011) to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-32-0083, Revision 2 (not yet released). Boeing stated that it had performed a new risk-based assessment and found that 18 months is adequate to mitigate the remaining fleet risk. Boeing requested the compliance time be changed to 18 months from the date of the service bulletin. Also, Boeing requested that we provide credit for actions accomplished in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-32-0083, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2011.

We partially agree. We agree to update the compliance time to 18 months based on the new risk-based safety assessment. We revised paragraphs (g), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD to reflect an initial compliance time of 18 months. We disagree with delaying issuance of the final rule to reference Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-32-0083, Revision 2, because that service information is not published at this time. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) once Revision 2 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-32-0083 is released.

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 82210, December 30, 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 82210, December 30, 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 proposed AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary pin 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 these replacements:

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 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.

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 March 27, 2012 (77 FR 18141). 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 received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 18141, March 27, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data 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 (77 FR 18141, March 27, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 18141, March 27, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,720, or $680 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 that 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.

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 (77 FR 18141, March 27, 2012), 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 March 27, 2012 (77 FR 18135). 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 received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 18135, March 27, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 74 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 36 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $33,632 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,715,208, or $36,692 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 that 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.

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 (77 FR 18135, March 27, 2012), 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:

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 February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5724). 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 received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 5724, February 6, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data 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 (77 FR 5724, February 6, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 5724, February 6, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,020, or $255 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 40 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $3,400 per product. 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 that 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.

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 (77 FR 5724, February 6, 2012), 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 published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74012). That NPRM proposed to require installing new structural members in and new tie rod(s) and attach fittings on the left and right sides of the lowered ceiling support structure.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 74012, November 30, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines, Air France, and Boeing requested that we revise the proposed rule (76 FR 74012, November 30, 2011) to reflect the latest revision of the service information in this AD.

We agree. Boeing has issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2012. This service bulletin was revised due to minor changes to correct hardware and location for its installation. We have changed this final rule to reference Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2012, and changed total task hours in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD from 19 hours to 23 hours to account for the revised labor hours. Paragraph (h) of this final rule has also been added to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482, dated February 24, 2011.

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:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 74012, November 30, 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 74012, November 30, 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 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15293), and proposed to supersede AD AD 2010-18-03, Amendment 39-16416 (75 FR 51931, August 24, 2010).

On August 11, 2010, we issued AD 2010-18-03, Amendment 39-16416 (75 FR 51931, August 24, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The preamble of AD 2010-18-03 explains that we consider the requirements of that AD “interim action” and are considering further rulemaking to mandate inspection (testing) of the PDCU and GCU cards and replacement of faulty cards, as required by European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010-0073, dated April 15, 2010. The planned compliance time for those actions would allow enough time for prior public comment on the merits of those actions. This proposed AD follows from that determination.

The unsafe condition is a leakage failure mode of TVS diodes used on PDCU or GCU cards in the PPDB, which, in combination with other system failures, could lead to loss of controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 15293, March 15, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect about 9 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2010-18-03, Amendment 39-16416 (75 FR 51931, August 24, 2010), and retained in this AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $340 per product.

We estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $340 per product.

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

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 (75 FR 51931, August 24, 2010), 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:

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 February 23, 2012 (77 FR 10691). 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 received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 10691, February 23, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

For clarification purposes, we changed the interval for the repetitive inspections in paragraph (g) of this AD to the following: “* * * at intervals not to exceed 800 flight cycles.” The repetitive interval was stated incorrectly in the NPRM (77 FR 10691, February 23, 2012) as 800 “total” flight cycles.

We estimate that this AD will affect 55 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 $4,675, or $85 per product.

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

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 (77 FR 10691, February 23, 2012), 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:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule ” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

In FR Doc. 2012-7477 appearing on page 21278 in the Federal Register issue of Monday, April 9, 2012, the following corrections are made:

The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding these amendments to the Commission's Rules. This preamble provides background information and a regulatory analysis of the amendments.

These amendments are being promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA), and will be codified in 19 CFR part 206.

Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. The Commission is adopting as a final rule, with three changes to correct typographical errors, the interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 3922) governing investigations relating to global and bilateral safeguard actions, market disruption, trade diversion, and review of relief actions (part 206 of its Rules). The final rule principally concerns subpart D of part 206, Investigations Relating to Bilateral Safeguard Actions, but also includes several technical and conforming changes to the general rules in subpart A of part 206. Prior to publication of the interim rule, the rules in subpart D applied only to Commission investigations under the bilateral safeguard provision in the NAFTA Implementation Act with respect to imports from Canada and Mexico. The Commission adopted the interim rule in response to legislation enacted by Congress in recent years that implements bilateral safeguard provisions in several additional free trade agreements (FTAs), including legislation approved on October 21, 2011, that implements FTAs with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. The implementing legislation for each of those FTAs directs the Commission, upon receipt of a petition, to conduct an investigation and determine whether, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the agreement, an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions that imports of such article constitute a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat thereof to the domestic industry producing an article that is like or directly competitive with the imported article. If the Commission makes an affirmative determination, it must recommend a remedy to the President; the President makes the final decision on remedy.

More specifically, in addition to the NAFTA Implementation Act, the Commission is required to conduct bilateral safeguard investigations and make determinations under section 311(b) of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 211(b) of the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, section 311(b) of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, and section 311(b) of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. For U.S. Code citations to the respective implementation acts, see the text of interim rule section 206.31 published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 3922).

These amendments expand upon previous rules in Subpart D of Part 206 that provide for investigations and determinations under the NAFTA Implementation Act. Each of the statutory provisions listed above contains requirements that are similar both substantively and procedurally to the provision in the NAFTA Implementation Act. These amended rules identify the types of entities that may file a petition, describe the information that must be included in a petition, indicate the time for Commission determinations and reporting, and establish procedures for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under administrative protective order in those instances in which the Commission is authorized to make such disclosure.

In its notice of the interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012, the Commission invited interested parties to submit written comments and asked that they be received within 60 days of publication in the notice in the Federal Register . The Commission received one written comment from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (Korea), Washington, DC, on February 13, 2012. In its written comment, Korea stated that, in the case of the bilateral safeguard provision in the FTA with Korea, the interim rule either did not properly incorporate or did not fully elaborate on (1) The obligation to notify the other Party in writing and consult on the initiation of an investigation within 30 days after it applies a safeguard measure; (2) the obligation to give interested parties a period of at least 20 days to submit comments after the publication of the notice; and (3) the obligation not to apply a provisional measure until at least 45 days after the initiation of investigation. In a footnote, Korea stated that the obligation to notify in writing and consult on the initiation of an investigation is usually fulfilled by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

The Commission carefully reviewed the written comment of Korea and in so doing considered whether it should make any changes to the rule to address the concerns raised by Korea. Based on that review, the Commission concluded that no change is necessary and that the interim rule should be adopted as a final rule without change (other than to correct typographical errors). The Commission considered each of the concerns raised by Korea. With respect to the obligation to notify and consult, the Commission notes, and Korea appears to agree, that obligations to notify and consult under the FTAs are generally fulfilled by executive branch agencies other than the Commission, which is an independent agency. In the Commission's view it would be inappropriate for the Commission to issue a rule that states how or when another executive branch agency should notify and/or consult with Korea in a bilateral safeguard matter.

With respect to the obligation to provide interested parties with a period of at least 20 days to submit comments after publication of the notice, the Commission is of the view that this obligation can be readily satisfied within the statutory time period for making an injury determination and is more properly addressed in the notice announcing institution of the investigation. The U.S. implementing statute provides that the Commission must make its injury determination within 120 days (180 days if critical circumstances are alleged) after the date on which the investigation is initiated.

With respect to the obligation not to apply a provisional measure until at least 45 days after initiation of an investigation, the Commission notes that decisions regarding whether and when to apply a provisional measure are made by the President, not the Commission. Accordingly, in the Commission's view it would be inappropriate for the Commission to promulgate a rule that addresses the period in time at which the President might apply a measure. Moreover, the Commission notes that when critical circumstances are alleged in a petition, U.S. legislation gives the Commission more than 45 days (up to 60 days from the day on which a request for provisional relief is filed) to make and transmit a determination and provisional relief recommendation to the President. When the request involves a perishable agricultural product, U.S. legislation allows the Commission to conduct an expedited investigation and recommend provisional relief with respect to a perishable agricultural product only if the Commission has, for at least 90 days prior to receipt of the petition containing the request, monitored and investigated imports of the product concerned under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). The Commission conducts such monitoring investigations at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The three typographical errors are in sections 206.1 and 206.32 of the rule. The first two errors are in section 206.1, which is amended to add the word “sections” before the list of statutory sections cited, and to substitute the symbol “§ ” for the word “section” so as to refer to “§ 206.31” of the rule to conform with standard rule writing format. The third error corrected is in section 206.32(a), which concerns the definition of “substantial cause,” to add the word “in” before the word “section.”

The Commission has determined that this action adopting a final rule does not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and thus does not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of final rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other statute.

This final rule does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999).

No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) because this final rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The final rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ). Moreover, it is exempt from the reporting requirements of that Act because it contains rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

The amendments are not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), since they do not contain any new information collection requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 19 CFR part 206 which was published at 77 FR 3922 on January 26, 2012, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 1361 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7701 of the Code.

Since January 1, 2008, §§ 1.1361-4(a)(8) and 301.7701-2(c)(2)(v) have treated a qualified subchapter S subsidiary (QSub) and a single-owner eligible entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for any purpose under § 301.7701-2 (collectively, a disregarded entity) as a separate entity for purposes of excise taxes imposed by Chapters 31, 32 (other than section 4181), 33, 34, 35, 36 (other than section 4461), and 38 of the Code, and any floor stocks tax imposed on articles subject to any of these taxes.

Effective July 1, 2010, section 10907 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), added new Chapter 49 to the Code, which imposes an excise tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services under section 5000B.

Consistent with existing §§ 1.1361-4(a)(8) and 301.7701-2(c)(2)(v), these temporary regulations add Chapter 49 to the list of excise taxes for which disregarded entities are treated as separate entities. Accordingly, effective for taxes imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 2012, these temporary regulations treat a disregarded entity as a separate entity for purposes of the indoor tanning services excise tax under section 5000B. These temporary regulations also treat a single-owner eligible entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for any purpose under § 301.7701-2 as a corporation with respect to the indoor tanning services excise tax.

The indoor tanning services excise tax is reported on Form 720 “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return”. As a result of these temporary regulations, a Form 720 reporting indoor tanning services excise taxes imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 2012, must be filed under the name and employer identification number (EIN) of the entity rather than under the name and EIN of the disregarded entity's owner. Thus, this rule affects returns of this tax that are due on or after October 31, 2012.

For taxes imposed under section 5000B on amounts paid before July 1, 2012, the IRS will treat payments made by a disregarded entity, or other actions taken by a disregarded entity, with respect to the indoor tanning services excise tax as having been made or taken by the owner of that entity. Thus, for such periods, the owner of a disregarded entity will be treated as satisfying its obligations with respect to the indoor tanning services excise tax if those obligations are satisfied either: (i) By the owner itself or (ii) by the disregarded entity on behalf of the owner.

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

The principal author of these regulations is Michael H. Beker, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are amended as follows:

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

This special local regulation will be enforced from 12 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 20, 2012 and from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on July 21 and 22, 2012.

This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 27, 28 and 29, 2012.

This special local regulation will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 22, 23, and 24, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 24, 2012, this special local regulation will also be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 25, 2011.

This special local regulation will be enforced from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 13, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators, participants and vessels from the hazards associated with power boat races, which are discussed further below.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on June 24, 2012 the OPA Racing LLC is holding an offshore powerboat race that will require the immediate area to be clear of all vessel traffic. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined powerboat races in close proximity to watercraft and infrastructure pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, powerboats traveling at high speeds, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators, vessels, and participants. This special local regulation will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on June 24, 2012. This regulated area will encompass all waters of Tawas Bay, beginning at a point on land at 44°14′53″ N, 83°27′34″ W; extending west to a point on land at position 44°15′33″ N, 83°31′30″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The regulated navigation area created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the regulated navigation area is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the regulated navigation area has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the regulated navigation area when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Tawas Bay near East Tawas, MI on June 24, 2012.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulated area would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only six hours in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule 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, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

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

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

Regulatory Information

On April 24, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC in the Federal Register (76 FR 79571). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard published an NPRM for this event, but did not have sufficient time to publish a Final Rule more than 30 days prior to the event. Rescheduling the event to accommodate the delayed effective date would be contrary to the public interest of the event organizers, sponsors and participants who expect the event to take place as scheduled.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw boat races.

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 and Sunday, June 24, 2012, the Outboard Drag Boat Association (ODBA) will host Draggin' on the Waccamaw, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. Approximately 40 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races.

The special local regulations encompass certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulations will be enforced daily from 11:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 2012 through June 24, 2012. The special local regulations consist of a regulated area around vessels participating in the event. The regulated area is as follows: All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within an Imaginary line connecting the following points; starting at point 1 in position 33°39′11.46″ N 079°05′36.78″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.18″ N 079°05′47.76″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′39.48″ N 079°05′37.44″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′42.3″ N 079°05′30.6″ W; thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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.

Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be in enforced for only sixteen hours over a two-day period; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the regulated area from 11:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 2012 and June 24, 2012. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents I. What is the background for EPA's action? II. What is EPA's analysis of the emissions statements for South Carolina? III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for EPA's action?

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) for ozone, setting the standard at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. 1 This revised standard was established based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time. 2

On April 30, 2004, EPA published designations and classifications for the revised 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23858). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. South Carolina was required to develop nonattainment SIP revisions addressing the CAA requirements for its nonattainment areas. Among other things, South Carolina was required to address the emissions statements requirement pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).

Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the CAA, requires states with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS (under subpart 2 of the Act) to submit within 2 years of designations a SIP revision to require emissions statements to be submitted annually by nitrous oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compound (VOC) sources to the state within that nonattainment area. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) provides criteria for waiving the application of clause (i) to sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of NO X or VOC.

In a March 14, 2006, memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director Air Quality Assessment Division to EPA Regional Air Division Directors (Curran Memo), 3 EPA clarified that the emissions statements requirement under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), is applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified marginal or higher under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Consistent with EPA's interpretation of the submission period for other subpart 2 obligations, the Curran Memo provides that the 2-year submission period for the emissions statements rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will run from the date an area was designated nonattainment and classified under subpart 2 for the 8-hour standard. Thus, states were required to submit their emissions statements rule by June 15, 2006, and the rule is required to provide that sources submit their first emissions statements to the state by no later than June 15, 2007 (for the 2006 calendar year). The Curran Memo further provides that if an area has a previously approved emissions statements rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, such rule will generally be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statements requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

On April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted an attainment demonstration  4 and associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, emissions statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. On November 15, 2011, EPA determined the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently, on March 7, 2012, EPA determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. See 76 FR 70656, and 77 FR 13493, respectively. Therefore, on January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment demonstration (the RFP, emissions statements, and the emissions inventory submittals, however, were not withdrawn) pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918. In today's action, EPA is approving the emissions statements portion of the attainment demonstration submitted by the State of South Carolina on April 29, 2010, as required by section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA will take action on the RFP and emissions inventory of South Carolina's April 29, 2010, SIP revision in separate actions.

The April 29, 2010, SIP revision states that South Carolina has the authority to require annual emissions statements and is taking specific actions to comply with the emissions statements requirements for any class or category of stationary sources that emits 25 tons per year or more of VOCs or NO X . Section VI. Moderate Nonattainment Requirements of the April 29, 2010, SIP revision states that the South Carolina portion of the moderate nonattainment area shall make submissions prescribed under the CAA section 182(a) and will comply with these mandates. Furthermore, South Carolina “has and is requiring, receiving, and archiving” emissions statements. SC DHEC has created a Web site at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/OzoneNonattainmentReporting/ to assist in this effort. SC DHEC provided a letter to EPA on May 4, 2012, to further clarify the State's emissions statements requirements. The May 4, 2012, letter can be found in the docket for today's action. EPA has evaluated South Carolina's April 29, 2010, SIP revision as it relates to the emissions statements requirement and has made the determination that it meets the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).

EPA is taking direct final action to approve a portion of a SIP revision, submitted on April 29, 2010, by the State of South Carolina, through the SC DHEC, to meet the emissions statements requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 and section 182 of the CAA.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on August 24, 2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by July 25, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised this rule will be effective on August 24, 2012 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS emissions statement's final approval for the bi-state Charlotte Area does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the determination does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Generally SIPs do not apply in Indian country throughout the United States. However, for purposes of the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does apply within the Reservation. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, in a letter dated October 13, 2011, EPA extended the opportunity for consultation between EPA and Catawba. Consultation with the Catawba Tribe began on October 14, 2011, and ended on October 31, 2011. The views and concerns raised by the Catawba Indian Nation during consultation have been taken into account in this final rule. Furthermore, EPA notes today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The New England Fishery Management Council (the Council) developed Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to establish a process for setting groundfish annual catch limits (also referred to as ACLs or catch limits) and accountability measures. The Council has a biennial review process to develop catch limits and revise management measures. Framework Adjustment (FW) 47 set annual catch limits for nine groundfish stocks and three jointly managed U.S./Canada stocks for FY 2012-2014. We recently approved FW 47, which became effective on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 26104).

While the Council was working on FW 47, a new benchmark stock assessment for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod was finalized in January 2012. The perception of the stock biomass changed dramatically as a result of this assessment. The Council initially intended to include catch limit alternatives based on these updated results in FW 47. However, after the results were finalized, the Council elected not to recommend final measures for GOM cod and requested that NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, use the interim rulemaking authority provided at section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement measures designed to reduce, but not end, overfishing in fishing year (FY) 2012. We published an emergency action for GOM cod on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25623), consistent with the Council's request. The common pool and sector GOM cod catch limits are based on this emergency action.

Along with FW 47 and the emergency GOM cod rule, we recently approved FY 2012 sector operations plans and allocations (77 FR 26129, May 2, 2012) (the“sector rule”). A sector receives an allocation of each stock, or annual catch entitlement (referred to as ACE, or allocation), based on its members' catch histories. State-operated permit banks also receive an allocation that can be transferred to qualifying sector vessels (for more information, see Amendment 17, 77 FR 16942, March 23, 2012). The sum of all sector and state-operated permit bank allocations is referred to as the sector sub-ACL in the management plan. Whatever groundfish allocation remains after sectors and state-operated permit banks receive their allocations is then provided to vessels not enrolled in a sector (referred to as the common pool). This allocation is also referred to as the common pool sub-ACL.

Changes in sector membership require ACL and ACE adjustments. This rule adjusts the FY 2012 sector and common pool allocations based on final sector membership as of May 1, 2012. Permitted vessels that wish to fish in a sector must enroll by December 1 of each year, with the fishing year beginning the following May 1 and lasting until April 30 of the next year. However, due to concern over the reduced GOM cod allocation (see the emergency action cited above), we provided additional flexibility to NE multispecies permitted vessels by allowing vessels to enroll in a sector for fishing year 2012 up through April 30, 2012. In addition, vessels had until April 30 (the day before the beginning of the fishing year) to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool. If the sector allocation increases as a result of sector membership changes, the common pool allocation decreases—the opposite is true as well. Because sector membership has changed since the December 1, 2011, date used in the FW 47 and sector proposed and final rules, we need to update the allocations to all sectors and to the common pool.

The final number of permits enrolled in a sector or state-operated permit bank for FY 2012 is 850 (an increase of 5 permits since the December 1, 2011, roster submission). All sector allocations assume that each NE multispecies vessel enrolled in a sector has a valid permit for FY 2012. Tables 1, 2, and 3 (below) explain the revised FY 2012 allocations as a percentage and absolute amount (in metric tons and pounds).

Table 4 compares the preliminary FY 2012 allocations published in the FW 47 final rule, with the revised allocations based on the final sector and state-operated permit bank rosters as of May 1, 2012. The table shows that changes in sector allocations due to updated rosters range from a decrease of 0.14 percent of GOM winter flounder, to an increase of 2.53 percent of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder. Common pool allocation adjustments range between a 43.18-percent decrease in Georges Bank (GB) haddock, to a 4.17-percent increase in GOM winter flounder. The changes in the common-pool allocations are greater because the common-pool has a significantly lower allocation for all stocks, so even small changes appear large when viewed as a percentage increase or decrease.