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 June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35888). 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 or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant 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 35888, June 15, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 110 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would 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 would cost about $2,770 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $360,800, or $3,280 per product.

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.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket 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 20, 2012 (77 FR 16191). 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 have considered the comments received.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) supports the intent of the NPRM (77 FR 16191, March 20, 2012).

Katherine Carpenter, a private citizen, stated that it seems unnecessary to require a law for replacing a faulty part, and that common sense indicates that companies should replace the parts to limit their liability in case of an accident.

We infer that the commenter was requesting that we withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 16191, March 20, 2012). According to section 39.1 (“Airworthiness Directives”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.1), we issue an AD based on our finding that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop in products of the same type design. We have the responsibility, placed on us by the Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq. ), to make an unsafe condition—whether resulting from maintenance, design defect, or otherwise—the subject of an AD, and to issue an AD when that unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Further, it is within our authority to issue ADs to require corrective actions to address unsafe conditions that are not being addressed (or not addressed adequately) by operators' normal maintenance procedures. An AD is the appropriate means for mandating this action. As a result, we are issuing this AD to eliminate the identified unsafe condition by requiring replacement of the TMU.

ALPA requested that the compliance time be reduced from 3,000 flight hours or 18 months, to 1,000 flight hours or 6 months, in order to reduce the operating exposure of the affected airplanes to two winter seasons.

We disagree to reduce the compliance time for two reasons. First, the DEICE PRESS or DEICE TIMER caution lights annunciate a failure to the flightcrew; the airplane flight manual (AFM) provides procedures to address this failure and instructs the flightcrew to use the manual mode of the pneumatic ice protection system and to exit icing conditions as soon as possible. While an increased pilot workload is classified as “major” in a fictional hazard assessment, the actual number of these events decreases that probability to a “medium” safety risk. Second, the manufacturer indicated that the mean time between TMU replacements has been 3,000 flight hours, consistent with the compliance time for this AD action. For these reasons, we determined that the compliance time is justified, and we have not changed the final rule in this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 16191, March 20, 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 16191, March 20, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 81 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 $20,655, 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 NPRM (77 FR 16191, March 20, 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 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 June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35304). That SNPRM 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 SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant 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 SNPRM (77 FR 35304, June 13, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 35304, June 13, 2012).

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,300 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $13,265, or $1,895 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket 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 June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36395). That NPRM proposed to require replacement of the stabilator horn assembly and/or repetitive inspections of the stabilator horn assembly for corrosion or cracks, as applicable.

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

Comments from Kristin Amelia Winter, Charles Parker, Carl Schoolcraft, Dave Fitzgerald for the International Comanche Society (ICS), Hans Neubert for the ICS, Brian Kotso, and John F. Murray were supportive of the AD's requirement for an initial inspection.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Phil Ciholas requested we reconsider the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011) requirements and noted that even the most severe horn cracking reported (propagated through the part to an exterior surface and was visually detectable without disassembly) had not resulted in complete horn failure or the severity of loss of control postulated in the justification for the AD. The commenter stated that no loss of control incidents or accidents have ever been documented that can be attributed to this failure mode. Given the statistical distribution of cracks reported, the ability of existing external inspections to detect cracks prior to complete failure of the horn, and the lack of any actual complete failures; the commenter felt the internal inspection requiring disassembly is unwarranted on most aircraft, especially recent serial number aircraft, unless there is other evidence of potential issues observed on a particular aircraft. We infer the commenter requested to withdraw the current proposal.

We disagree with the request to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011). A cracked stabilator horn coupled with the aircraft flight envelope conditions could create an unsafe scenario even though there has not been an in-flight event. A cracked stabilator horn reduces the aircraft's structural load limits.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

David Ray Fitzgerald, Robert (no last name given), Patrick D. Donovan, Edward P. Horan, Steven Fischer, Phil Ciholas, Dave Fitzgerald for ICS, Daniel Jacob Katz, Arthur John Beyer, Hans Neubert for the ICS, Brian Kotso, John F. Murray, and Dennis Boykin requested we clarify the applicability to clearly state the affected horn P/Ns and clarify whether other current and future horns (supplemental type certificates (STC), and so forth) are/will be affected. The commenters noted that the text of the proposed AD did not clearly state the affected part numbers.

Robert (no last name given), Steven Fischer, Daniel Jacob Katz, Hans Neubert for ICS, and John F. Murray also requested we address the configuration of Models PA-24, PA-24-250, and PA-24-260 airplanes using the same horn but installed with thicker torque tubes used on the Models PA-24-400, PA-30, and PA-39 airplanes as the proposed AD did not currently make mention of this configuration. They requested we consider excluding the airplanes configured with the thicker torque tubes from the applicability or including them as terminating action.

Phil Ciholas, Arthur John Beyer, and Dennis Boykin requested we address potential material and process changes during production of the Models PA-24, PA-24-250, and PA-24-260 airplanes, amending the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011) to apply to only those aircraft that have experienced issues.

Dennis Boykin noted that the manufacturing cycle between the original castings (about 1957) and the final production in 1972 of the Model PA-24-260 airplane precluded the requirement to ensure that similar castings, raw materials, and processes were in place, not just a similar design. Dennis Boykin was not aware of any Model PA-24-260 airplane's stabilator horn that has been separated, inspected, and found deficient.

We partially agree with the commenters. We agree with clarifying the affected P/Ns because the issue is specific to the combination of the P/N and models in the original NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011). However, we disagree with excluding aircraft with the thicker torque tube installed or making the installation of the thicker torque tube a terminating action. No documentation has been supplied to provide approval for the installation of thicker torque tubes on the Models PA-24, PA-24-250, or PA-24-260 airplanes, and the torque tube is not the only contributing factor to the unsafe condition. The FAA has determined the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. We have insufficient data to show that airplanes modified with the thicker torque tube do not have the unsafe condition.

We also disagree with excluding stabilator horns manufactured later in the production cycle. We have no record of castings, raw materials, and/or processes changing significantly enough to provide justification to exclude those airplanes from this AD action.

If an owner/operator submits substantiating data to support the installation of the thicker torque tube as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to this requirement, the FAA will review and consider all AMOC requests we receive provided they follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD.

We changed the AD's applicability in this final rule AD action to include the horn P/N.

Lawrence La Beau, Charles Parker, Eric Paul, Tom Veatch, Ivan R. Wilson, Patrick D. Donovan, Ken E. Shaffer, Patric Barry, John Trudel, Carl Schoolcraft, Phil Ciholas, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Andrew Detsch, Hans Neubert for the ICS, Brian Kotso, John F. Murray, and Allan H. Bieck requested that the AD state an appropriate lower shear nut torque value for the bolts common to the stabilator horn and torque tube. Phil Ciholas requested we add horn deformation limits as a way to control the installation torque and related stress corrosion cracking. Charles Parker, Eric Paul, Tom Veatch, Ivan R. Wilson, Patric Barry, John Trudel, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Hans Neubert for the ICS, and Brian Kotso requested we consider an initial inspection and reinstallation with the lower torque value as terminating action for the AD. Eric Paul and John F. Murray requested we lower the torque value of the stop collar bolts. Phil Ciholas requested we consider switching to shear nuts when any work is done on the joint.

The commenters stated over-torque is the root cause of the stress corrosion condition and the procedure does not clearly require a lower torque value. None of the commenters provided justification for the use of stop collar bolts separate from the horn bolts or for the shear nuts.

We agree with adding the installation torque value for the bolts common to the horn and torque tube into the AD procedures because it is a factor in mitigating the unsafe condition. We will also coordinate with the airplane's manufacturer on clarifying the airplane maintenance manual procedures for torque of these bolts. However, we disagree with adding an initial inspection and reinstallation of the torque tube with the lower torque value as terminating action for the AD. Although the torque value is a contributing factor, it is not the only factor (others are balance arm interference fit, basic material susceptibility, and corrosion potential).

No sufficient correlation has been established between the torque value and deformation and subsequent stress corrosion cracking. Consequently, we disagree with adding horn deformation limits as a way to control the installation torque and related stress corrosion cracking.

We disagree with mandating a lower torque value of the stop collar bolts or mandating a switch to shear nuts when any work is done on the joint. The stop collar bolts did not contribute to the unsafe condition, and we cannot mandate actions through an AD that are unnecessary to correct the unsafe condition. There is no current data for approval to change the configuration to shear nuts.

We changed the AD by adding the installation torque value for the bolts common to the horn and torque tube into the AD procedures.

Lawrence La Beau, Randy Black, Anonymous, Donald Dummer, Albert Powers, Steven Fischer, Stewart Campbell, Miller Duffield Einsel, Robert, Eric Paul, Tom Veatch, Patric Barry, John Trudel, Edward P. Horan, Carl Schoolcraft, Steven Fischer, Phil Ciholas, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Daniel Jacob Katz, Hans Neubert for the ICS, Lawrence E. Pride, Jim Ritter, Brian Kotso, and John F. Murray noted thicker torque tubes discovered during the ICS' survey targeted inspections at the horn. This survey was beyond the current maintenance program. The commenters cited the thicker torque tube could lessen the potential for stress corrosion cracking due to horn deformation. Robert, Steven Fischer, Daniel Jacob Katz, Hans Neubert for ICS, and John F. Murray requested we address the configuration of Models PA-24, PA-24-250, and PA-24-260 airplanes with the subject horn but installed with thicker torque tubes.

We do not agree with the commenters. We disagree with authorizing the installation of the thicker torque tube. No documentation has been supplied to provide approval for installation of the thicker torque tube configuration on any airplanes affected by this AD.

The FAA will review and consider any AMOC to support the installation of the thicker tube provided it follows the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Kristin Amelia Winter, Lawrence Zubel, Charles Parker, Randy Black, Donald Dummer, Steven Fischer, Stewart Campbell, Miller Duffield Einsel, Eric Paul, Tom Veatch, Ivan R. Wilson, Patric Barry, Steven Fischer, Phil Ciholas, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Daniel Jacob Katz, Hans Neubert for the ICS, Jim Ritter, Brian Kotso, and John F. Murray requested a terminating action to the repetitive inspections. All the commenters proposed various actions (that is, use of lower installation torque value, installation of a thicker torque tube, installation of replacement horn by way of Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) CASA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SVA 532, and terminating action based on additional data collected during the inspections) with varying levels of supporting data.

We disagree because no proposed terminating action eliminates all the contributing factors to the unsafe condition. The individual proposed actions have been addressed in other requested changes to the AD. The inspection or replacement programs will manage the issue to an acceptable level of risk.

We will consider proposals for a terminating action as an AMOC provided the procedures of 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD are followed.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Commenters David Charles Meigs, Randy Black, Steven Fischer, Hans Neubert for the ICS, and Brian Kotso noted that operators have typically been allowed credit for previous compliance in AD actions. All commenters requested provision for credit when compliance to the requirements has already been accomplished.

We agree that credit should be given when compliance to the requirements has already been done. The AD already allows for such credit by stating “unless already done” in paragraph (f) of the AD. As long as the requirements of the AD are followed, credit is available. Any other actions taken would need to be submitted as an AMOC following paragraph (h) of the AD.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Commenters David Charles Meigs, Randy Black, Steven Fischer, Hans Neubert for the ICS, Brian Kotso stated that the AD applicability is not clearly defined in terms of both the susceptible horn part number and the affected models. Several commenters request clarification of the AD applicability to replacement parts, particularly the horn in CASA STC SVA 532.

We partially agree with clarification on the applicability because the focus of this AD is the horn P/N as discussed in the previous issue “Request To Clarify Applicability.” We disagree with specifically addressing the CASA STC because the STC is still under review for FAA validation and not all design issues have been addressed at this point. Any action relating the STC to the AD will be documented during the FAA review of the CASA STC.

As discussed previously, we changed the AD's applicability to include the horn P/N.

Patric Barry and Phil Ciholas expressed concerns with the availability of parts and shop capacity. The commenters requested an increase in the initial compliance time.

We disagree with the commenters. The unsafe condition must be addressed in a timely manner. The FAA will consider AMOCs following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD to address any potential parts availability or shop capacity issues.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Commenters Randy Black, Patrick D. Donovan, Carl Schoolcraft, Hans Neubert for the ICS, John F. Murray, and Allan H. Bieck requested changing compliance time criteria. Patrick D. Donovan, Hans Neubert for the ICS, and John F. Murray asked that only calendar time be used for compliance times. Carl Schoolcraft and Allan H. Bieck requested that only TIS be used for compliance times. The commenters noted that stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a time-related function and not TIS. Carl Schoolcraft noted the calendar time limit to be arbitrary and to have no bearing on the condition of the horn. Allan H. Bieck commented TIS is what puts strain on the horn, not idle calendar time while the aircraft sits in a hangar.

We disagree with eliminating the calendar time compliance. Calendar time is a key factor in SCC. We also disagree with removing the operational time (TIS) requirement as corrosion in the torque tube is a contributing factor, and the established actions for the corrosion currently have both a calendar and TIS requirement. We will retain our compliance time using both calendar time and TIS.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Kristin Amelia Winter, Charles Parker, Albert Powers, Ken E. Shaffer, John Trudel, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Phil Ciholas, and Brian Kotso requested eliminating the repetitive inspection requirement. Commenters justify eliminating the repetitive inspections by stating the cracks do not appear to be time or use related, there is low or no history of cracking in the fleet, there have been no catastrophic horns failures in service, and there is potential for terminating action.

We do not agree because SCC is inherently time-related and indirectly driven by operational usage. Not all aircraft will crack, and those that do will not crack at the same time. SCC has several contributing factors that add to the variability. For instance, typical fatigue cracking includes scatter factors on the order of four to determine the appropriate intervals to take action. While high-time aircraft with no cracking is useful data, it does not eliminate the need for action. As for the volume of findings, the quantity compared to the entire fleet size is low. However, when measured against the quantity of valid inspections performed, the find rate is as high as 20 percent.

It is also true that no parts have failed catastrophically in flight and the findings have been during the ICS' survey targeted at the horn. Note that this survey was beyond the current required maintenance program. A cracked horn coupled with the aircraft flight envelope conditions could still create an unsafe scenario even though there has not been an in-flight event. In fact, the service history provides evidence of extensive cracking on both sides of the torque tube bore leading to the potential unsafe condition. As discussed in other responses to commenter requests, no proposed terminating action eliminates all the contributing factors to the unsafe condition. The inspection or replacement programs will manage the issue to an acceptable level of risk.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Eric Paul, Ivan R. Wilson, Patrick D. Donovan, Patric Barry, Carl Schoolcraft, Phil Ciholas, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Andrew Detsch, John F. Murray, and Allan H. Bieck requested an increased repetitive interval from 100 hours to 200 hours, 500 hours, 1,000 hours, or 2,000 hours.

Patrick D. Donovan, Patric Barry, and Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS noted that taking half of the average discovery time (stated as 4,000 hours TIS) should be a reasonable approach to establish a repetitive interval. Ivan R. Wilson and Jim Ritter also referenced the long service history of the fleet (approximately 50 years and several thousand hours). Andrew Detsch asserted that the cracks occurred later in the service life or did not grow. Arthur John Beyer provided information that they inspected the component twice near 4,000 TIS at an interval of 4 years and 264 hours with no cracking observed at either inspection. Han Neubert recommended establishing intervals based on a study of 2014-T6 behavior under stress corrosion to define stress and environment thresholds similar to a provided report about stress corrosion susceptibility, Time Exposure Studies on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Aluminum 2014-T6, 2219-T87, 2014-T651, 7075-T651, and Titanium 6Al-4V, dated June 1, 1973 ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730009798_1973009798.pdf ). Charles Parker, Arthur John Beyer, and Jim Ritter requested justification for the current intervals.

We partially agree with adjusting the repetitive interval from 3 years to 5 years because it would align with the rationale for the existing 10-year or 1,000-hour interval and other guidance used to establish the intervals. There is no need to decrease the interval to 200 hours as the AD provides an interval of 500 hours.

We disagree with increasing the repetitive interval beyond 500 hours for several reasons. We must consider many factors to define an appropriate inspection interval.

The first factor, the design safety requirement, does not allow strength degradation below design ultimate value or stiffness degradation for flutter. Advisory Circular (AC) 23-13A, Fatigue, Fail-Safe, and Damage Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic Structure for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, dated September 29, 2005, ( http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2023-13A/$FILE/ac23-13A.pdf ) describes how ensuring no detectable cracks within the operational life of the aircraft through an appropriate inspection interval meets the design requirement. The existing findings of cracks do not meet these requirements. Simply, the aircraft is not certificated to meet airworthiness standards with a known crack.

A “detectable” size for a crack is a value established for the specific inspection method in a specific application. The discovered cracks had far exceeded detectable size before they were found during the targeted inspections. This is due in part to no targeted inspections until discovery of corrosion issues on the attached torque tube several years ago. Following the approach in AC 23-13A, the estimated service history would provide a test life of approximately 4,000 hours, then apply a scatter factor of approximately 4, yielding 1,000 hours. Again, this should be for detectable cracks that do not degrade the strength and stiffness. An additional factor of 2 (providing two inspection opportunities) could be applied to cover that portion, yielding an inspection at 500 hours. Note, this is only an example to show the reasonableness of the proposed interval based on service data. The interval is driven primarily by calendar time using a similar approach.

The second factor is the probabilistic nature of cracking. While some high-time or aged aircraft do not exhibit cracking, we expect this in the distribution and is insufficient rationale to shorten the interval. For example, the data point of a 4-year/264-hour interval is useful, but many more data points would be necessary to support an increased interval.

The third factor is associated with service history and the existing intervals for related issues on the stabilator control system. For the attached torque tube, Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1160, dated December 26, 2005, specifies a 10-year repetitive inspection for corrosion. Also for the tube, Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-04-88, dated September 15, 2004, ( http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/77fc29bb15c8a85b8625721f0052ecb4/$FILE/CE-04-88.pdf ) specifies a 3-year or 500-hour repetitive inspection, and AD 74-13-03 (41 FR 17371, April 26, 1976) requires a 3-year or 500-hour repetitive inspection. These issues are corrosion-related and corrosion is a factor in the SCC of the horn.

The assertion that cracks occurred later or early in service and then did not grow has no supporting data to use in establishing intervals.

The FAA reviewed the report provided by Hans Neubert, Time Exposure Studies on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Aluminum 2014-T6, 2219-T87, 2014-T651, 7075-T651, and Titanium 6Al-4V, dated June 1, 1973, ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730009798_1973009798.pdf ). While additional work could be coordinated if funding is available, we must first manage the known condition. The report already alludes to the fact that aluminum 2014-T6 is particularly susceptible to SCC which invalidates the assumption that aluminum 2014-T6 would have equivalent behavior to other test material. There is no true stress corrosion threshold (similar to a fatigue endurance limit) for aluminum 2014-T6. Additional work would be required to validate the stresses from all contributing factors once any type of threshold was tested.

We changed the repetitive interval for inspected parts in paragraph (g)(1) of the AD from 3 years to 5 years.

Kristin Amelia Winter, Steven Fischer, George Edward White, Patric Barry, Carl Schoolcraft, Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS, Andrew Detsch, Arthur John Beyer, Jim Ritter, and John F. Murray requested we reconsider the requirement for repetitive, intrusive inspection of the assembly. The commenters were concerned that repetitive disassembly and re-assembly of the structure could introduce new risks from wear, assembly errors, etc.

We disagree with the commenters. While we agree that there are potential risks with the repeated inspection, the current issue is a higher risk and we must address the known unsafe condition. The need for a repetitive inspection has been addressed elsewhere in this final rule AD action. Installation of the new parts would minimize the stated risk of repeated disassembly and reassembly and achieve the maximum interval of 10 years or 1,000 hours.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

George Edward White, Patrick D. Donovan, Patric Barry, Phil Ciholas, and Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS requested allowance for alternative, less intrusive, inspection methods such as X-ray, magnetic particle inspection, or bolt torque and measured torque tube deformation. The commenters reasoned that the alternative inspection methods could avoid disassembly and reassembly.

We do not agree with this request because:

• X-ray does not provide a sufficiently high probability (reliability) of detection for cracks at sizes needed to control the unsafe condition.

• Magnetic particle inspection is for magnetic materials and would not be appropriate for the aluminum horn.

• While the bolt torque value or torque tube deformation could be a partial indicator, it is not a full measure of all the contributing factors. The viability of such a method would also be affected by manufacturing variability (machining, drawing tolerances, and so forth) making it difficult to build an appropriate model to ensure an adequate inspection method.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS requested we clarify the statement in the summary of the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011) of what parts are being replaced.

We agree with the commenter that it is important to clearly state what parts are required in the AD action.

We changed the summary of the final rule to require replacement of the stabilator horn assembly and/or repetitive inspection of the stabilator horn assembly, as applicable.

Ivan R. Wilson, Patrick D. Donovan, Carl Schoolcraft, Andrew Detsch, and John F. Murray requested a change in compliance time to allow inspected parts to have the same inspection interval as new replacement parts. Carl Schoolcraft also requested the option of installing serviceable parts in lieu of new parts.

We agree with allowing used parts as replacement parts provided they have been inspected before installation and found free of cracks (serviceable) and they continue the repetitive inspection option in this AD. However, we disagree with allowing the same interval on used inspected replacement parts as on new replacement parts because a single penetrant inspection method does not provide the same confidence level for a crack-free part as a new part does. Such an inspection could not reliably detect sufficiently small cracks; therefore, an approach similar to damage tolerance requiring multiple inspections is warranted.

We added language to:

• Clarify compliance and procedures for the replacement of the stabilator horn assembly with a serviceable stabilator horn assembly, provided it is inspected before installation and found free of cracks or corrosion and continues with the repetitive inspections required for a used part; and

• Clarify the initial inspection for owner/operators who may have already installed a used serviceable stabilator horn assembly on their airplane.

Randy Black and Arthur John Beyer requested we validate and/or revise the cost estimate. One commenter ordered parts including a new horn, new torque tube, new bearings, and new hardware estimated at $1,500 for only the parts cost. Another commenter noted the cost on U.S. operators does not include subsequent inspections.

We do not agree with this request because the parts cost only includes those parts required by the AD actions (the horn assembly). Optional parts, such as the tube, are not mandated and not required in the associated cost. Repetitive inspections are not included in AD cost estimates as it cannot be determined which option an owner/operator may choose, or the number of times the action(s) may be executed on an individual aircraft.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Commenters Bob Rosansky, Patrick D. Donovan, Patric Barry, John Trudel, and Phil Ciholas are associated with this request. Some commenters requested that the airplane manufacturer demonstrate the ability to meet the parts demand before the AD is issued. One commenter requested time to create a parts supply for the replacement horn from the Australian CASA STC SVA 532. Several commenters estimated that it might require one year or more for the manufacturer to provide the required parts and are concerned that the manufacturer's parts ordering system will be unable to meet the demand. The request for the CASA-approved horn is to alleviate the AD actions.

We do not agree because the manufacturer has told the FAA they can support the parts requirements for this AD. This AD is necessary to address an unsafe condition. If parts availability becomes a problem, the FAA will consider AMOC requests and determine whether they provide an acceptable level of safety when they are submitted following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD. The AD initial compliance time should provide sufficient time to create a parts supply.

The AD is not addressing the CASA-approved horn since the horn is not FAA-approved at this time.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Patrick D. Donovan, Patric Barry, and John Trudel requested changes to the compliance time based on possible quality issues in manufacturing or delivering required parts. The commenters referenced instances where the manufacturer supplied parts that did not meet/specifications or delivered the wrong part numbers.

We do not agree because if non-conforming parts or the wrong parts are distributed by the manufacturer, then the problem will be addressed through the current regulations, including potential AD action. The FAA cannot address this problem unless it occurs and is appropriately reported.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Randy Black suggested the manufacturer combine the replacement horn into a kit with the torque tube and noted that a combined kit would provide a convenience to owners/operators.

We disagree because the additional parts beyond the horn assembly are not required by this AD because they are not necessary to address the unsafe condition.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Dennis Boykin stated the FAA failed to send the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011) to him. The commenter stated he was not notified of the NPRM by the FAA, but by the type club. We conclude that the commenter requested direct notification of the NPRM.

We disagree with the request. The FAA does not mail NPRMs. Effective March 1, 2010, the FAA stopped mailing paper copies of ADs. We have continued to fax and/or use the US Postal Service to mail Emergency ADs. To continue receiving ADs at no cost, please subscribe to our GovDelivery email service by visiting the Regulatory and Guidance Library home page ( http://rgl.faa.gov ). For those desiring paper copies, we will continue to provide the AD Biweekly, which is a paid subscription of all ADs issued in the Federal Register over the previous 2-week period. The AD Biweekly is printed and mailed by the Government Printing Office (GPO). Contact the GPO directly at phone: (202) 512-1806 to subscribe.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Kristin Amelia Winter, George Edward White, Patrick D. Donovan, Arthur John Beyer, Hans Neubert for the ICS, and Dennis Boykin requested adding a reporting requirement with subsequent use of the data to evaluate (or eliminate) the inspection intervals and to evaluate potential terminating actions. Two of the commenters requested the reporting be provided to both the FAA and ICS. One commenter also requested a provision for rescinding the AD or extending the inspection intervals based on the number of non-findings, especially if a new part is installed. Finally, one commenter proposed to exclude the Model PA-24-260 and evaluate it at a later date.

The commenters noted that the initial inspection cycle would provide three years of time to collect and evaluate the data which would allow the FAA and interested parties an opportunity to formulate a more narrowly targeted AD that would better balance the cost with the hoped for improvement in airworthiness and hence safety. Lastly, it would provide the data necessary to design and obtain approval of an AMOC or STC that effectively addresses this unsafe condition and terminates any final recurring AD.

We disagree with adding a reporting requirement. Based on the Paperwork Reduction Act, a reporting requirement must meet the following conditions:

• Help develop a corrective action;

• Determine the scope of the problem and how adequate the Design Approval Holder's corrective actions are; and

• Avoid unsafe consequences if we do not collect the information.

To eliminate the repetitive inspections and develop a terminating action depends on a combination of factors. The following three factors would require a re-design to eliminate the repetitive inspections: Balance arm interference fit, basic material properties, and use of a thicker torque tube previously discussed. Lowering the installation torque value was addressed earlier. Reduction of corrosion potential is currently addressed via repetitive inspections as discussed below. As all major contributing factors are not eliminated, reporting would not provide sufficient information to eliminate the inspections or directly provide terminating action.

Any individual or group is free to work independently to coordinate data collection supporting a potential concept as an AMOC or design change (STC).

We also disagree with evaluating the Model PA-24-260 airplane only in the future because that model meets the regulatory requirement where the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

Patric Barry and John Trudel expressed concern that the manufacturer 's engineering/design work on the corrective action and parts supply issues are evidence of abandonment of the responsibilities of a type certificate holder. We conclude the commenters requested the FAA determine the status of the type certificate holder.

We disagree with this request. The manufacturer met its obligation as a type certificate holder by working with the FAA and industry to generate a corrective action program addressing the unsafe condition.

Based on these comments, we made no change to the AD action.

Hans Neubert for the ICS commented that the reason that the torque tube assembly/control horn has not been previously inspected for cracks is due to the fact there is no prior manufacturer requirement to inspect. We infer the commenter requested the FAA require inspection of the torque tube assembly/control horn.

We agree with the commenter. There was not a known need for inspection of the assembly. With discovery of the unsafe condition, a program is now being put into place.

Based on these comments, we made no change to the AD action.

Hans Neubert for the ICS recommended that this service information be considered as advisory only to the corrective action. The commenter stated that the preliminary and final versions of the service information were based on an industry magazine article and were without substantiating data, field service history, or engineering evaluation.

We disagree because the FAA independently evaluated all available data. We incorporated the intent of this service information into the AD, with the exception of adjustments to the applicability and compliance time.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

George Edward White recommended incorporation of corrosion preventive measures into the AD. The commenter noted known corrosion issues on the adjacent torque tube.

We disagree because corrosion preventive measures are already covered by the following documents and are not necessary to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD:

• Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1160, dated December 26, 2005, at http://www.piper.com/Company/Publications/SB%201160%20Stab%20Torque%20Tube%20Assy%20Insp.pdf;

• Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-04-88, dated September 15, 2004, at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/77fc29bb15c8a85b8625721f0052ecb4/$FILE/CE-04-88.pdf;

• AD 74-13-03, Amendment 39-2588 (41 FR 17371, April 26, 1976), at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/5CBFDEAB5E2AC41586256E1200498F02?OpenDocument&Highlight=74-13-03;

• AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices—Aircraft Inspection and Repair, at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/99861; and

• AC 43-4A, Corrosion Control for Aircraft, at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2043-4A/$FILE/AC%2043-4a%20.pdf.

Based on these comments, we made no change to the AD action.

Patric Barry stated that periodically opening up the tail of the aircraft for inspection may be beneficial, suggesting that routine servicing of the entire area should be included in this AD. Dave Fitzgerald for the ICS stated that opening up the tail area for service of the trim drum, torque tube bearings, and associated areas is beneficial as part of normal maintenance, but is not part of this AD since the AD addresses the horn and torque tube and not associated components.

We agree that maintenance of the trim drum, torque tube bearings, and associated areas is important but disagree with including it in this AD action. These components are not directly related to the unsafe condition so are not part of this AD.

We did not change this final rule AD action based on these comments.

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 changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36395, June 22, 2011)

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

We estimate that this AD affects 3,100 airplanes of U.S registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in, 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 February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11421). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD CF-2011-40, dated October 26, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

The Boeing Company indicated it supported the content of the proposed rule.

Several commenters believed the compliance time in the AD should be extended. Atlas Air requested that the compliance time be increased from 42 to 60 months. Atlas Air noted that the 42-month requirement would force them to remove APUs prior to their 8,000 hours soft time threshold which is based on their budget and operating experience and reliability. This threshold would increase the maintenance burden and cost to Atlas Air.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) also requested that the compliance date be extended. KLM indicated that requiring all the affected APUs be modified in 42 months would require forced unscheduled replacements.

United Airlines (UAL) also requested that the compliance time be extended from 42 to 48 months. United indicated that the 42-month compliance time would require engines to be removed prematurely and cause capacity problems for repair shops.

We do not agree. We have no data that justifies extending the compliance time to 48 months. Operators who want to a longer compliance interval may request an AMOC using the procedures in 14 CFR part 39. Operators contemplating an AMOC request are reminded that they must show that their extension will provide the same level of safety as provided by the 42-month compliance interval.

KLM also requested a longer compliance period for APU's modified per SB 3910001-49-16250. KLM commented that the risk for these blades is lower than the pre-SB blades. United Parcel Service Company also requested that the compliance period be increased from 42 to 60 months for APUs having SB-16250 previously incorporated (improved HPT blades).

We do not agree. We have no data supporting the conclusion that APUs modified per SB 3910001-49-16250 have a lower risk of separation of the rear gas generator case or that an increased compliance time is justified for these blades. We did not change the AD based on this comment.

KLM asked what the compliance date for this AD would be, since the compliance date in AD CF-2011-40, dated October 26, 2011, is different from the date in Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin (SB) 3910001-49-16255, Revision No. 2, dated March 1, 2011.

The compliance date for this AD will be 35 days after the date the AD is published in the Federal Register . We did not change the AD based on this comment.

KLM indicated that accomplishing SB 391001-49-16255, Revision No. 2, dated March 1, 2011, and our AD will not prevent high pressure turbine blades from failing.

We do not agree. The root cause of the failure of the HPT blades is excessive load resulting from extreme engine distress, which leads to turbine exhaust duct separation. Accomplishing SB 391001-49-A16255, Revision No. 2, dated March 1, 2011, will mitigate excessive load by modifying the rear gas generator case, exhaust duct support and the turbine exhaust duct flanges. We did not change the AD based on this comment.

KLM noted that not all APUs can be modified during an overhaul. Therefore, extra man-hours will be required to perform this modification.

We do not agree. The man-hours indicated in the SB and in this AD are sufficient to modify the APU. The number of hours required to perform an engine overhaul is not the subject of this AD. We did not change the AD based on this comment.

Southern Air indicated that compliance paragraph (e)(1) is misleading wherein it states “within 42 months after effective date of the AD or the first time any maintenance is done other than preventative maintenance, whichever occurs first * * *.” Southern Air believes the statement should read: “42 months after the effective date of the AD or when maintenance which requires unmating of the flanges, or overhaul, whichever occurs first.”

UAL indicated the term “preventative maintenance” in paragraph (e)(1) is vague and ambiguous. UAL noted that as currently stated the AD would have to be accomplished if one was replacing a line replaceable unit like an exciter or starter. UAL suggested that the maintenance be accomplished when the exhaust support duct is accessible, i.e., removed from the APU.

We agree. We changed paragraph (e)(1) of the AD to read “Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD or the first time the APU or module is at a maintenance facility that can perform the modifications, regardless of the maintenance action or reason for APU removal, whichever occurs first, modify the rear gas generator case, exhaust duct support, and turbine exhaust duct flanges.”

UAL commented that several steps in the accomplishment instructions in P&WC SB No. 3910001-49-A16255, Revision No. 2, do not offer an increase in safety and should not be mandated by the AD. UAL noted that the component maintenance manual offers sufficient instructions to perform the required modifications.

We do not agree. UAL did not identify any unnecessary steps, we know of none, and our inquiry of the OEM did not identify any unnecessary steps. If the OEM determined that the component maintenance manual was adequate, it would have been referenced in SB No. 3910001-49-A16255, Revision No. 2. We did not change the AD based on this comment.

KLM asked that since the APU was originally certified to a TSO should the certification basis be maintained during the lifetime of operation.

We reply to KLM's multi-layered comment as follows. First, we granted TSO approval to PWC for this APU on September 20, 1988. Second, the corrective actions required by this AD should return the product to the level of safety intended by its certification basis. Finally, whether or not an OEM covers the cost of actions mandated by our AD actions is between the OEM and the product owner/operator.

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 135 APUs installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $39,899 per APU. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $5,386,365.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (phone: (800) 647-5527) is provided 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 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 June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34283). That SNPRM 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 SNPRM (77 FR 34283, June 11, 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 SNPRM (77 FR 34283, June 11, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 34283, June 11, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 694 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 14 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 $825,860, or $1,190 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 (76 FR 67625, November 2, 2011), SNPRM (77 FR 34283, June 11, 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

On March 29, 2012, at 77 FR 18970, 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 BHTC Model 407 helicopters. That NPRM proposed to require replacing attachment hardware and performing initial and recurring determinations of the torque on the nuts of the tailboom-attachment bolts at all four attachment locations. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent an over-torque of a bolt, bolt failure, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2010-33, dated September 30, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition for the BHTC Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 53000 through 53990. Transport Canada advises that a review of the tailboom-attachment installation determined that the torque value of the bolts specified in the BHTC Model 407 Maintenance Manual and applied during manufacturing, exceeded the torque range recommended for the bolts. Transport Canada states that this situation, if not corrected, could lead to a bolt failure, detachment of the tailboom, 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.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the Transport Canada AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The differences between this AD and the Transport Canada AD are as follows:

• This AD uses the term “hours time-in-service” to describe compliance times, and Transport Canada AD uses the term “air time”;

• For helicopters with 7000 hours or less TIS, the Transport Canada AD requires accomplishing the actions in the AD at the next scheduled 600-hour inspection or by December 31, 2010, whichever occurs first. This AD requires accomplishing the actions at the next scheduled 600-hour inspection or 90 days, whichever occurs first.

• This AD uses the term “determine the torque” when referring to the torque on a nut, and the Transport Canada AD uses the term “perform a torque check.”

BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 407-10-93, Revision A, dated August 30, 2010 (ASB), which specifies installing new attachment hardware with a reduced torque value. This ASB specifies performing a torque check of the newly installed bolts and nuts every one to five flight hours until the torque stabilizes at all locations, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours. Transport Canada classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD CF-2010-33 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We estimate that this AD will affect 552 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate it will take about two work-hours per helicopter to replace the hardware and one work-hour per helicopter to determine the recurring torque value at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $498 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate for the first year the total cost per helicopter to be $923, and the total cost impact on U.S. operators to be $509,496. This estimated total cost assumes attachment hardware will be replaced on all affected helicopters, the torque will be considered stabilized after determining the torque value once, and the 300-hour TIS recurring torque determination will be accomplished twice a year.

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 supersede AD 2010-18-13, Amendment 39-16427 (75 FR 55459, September 13, 2010). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30926). That NPRM proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 2010-18-13. That NPRM also proposed to require replacement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals with redesigned seals and add an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirement by allowing replacement of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly with a redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly.

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

The Boeing Company and FedEx Express are in agreement with the proposed AD.

FedEx Express requested that we allow credit for prior compliance with the AD actions.

We do not agree. The proposed AD already allows credit for prior compliance in paragraph (e), which states to comply within the compliance times specified unless already done. We did not change the AD.

United Airlines, Korean Air, and Atlas Air, requested that we reference the latest revisions of two SBs which were revised since the proposed AD was issued.

We agree. We now reference Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4ENG 72-816, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2012, and Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4G-100-72-240, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2012, in the AD.

United Airlines requested that we change paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to only require use of paragraphs 1.A. through 1.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. PW4ENG 72-816 since additional paragraphs of the SB are not needed to comply with the AD.

We agree. We changed paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to only require use of paragraphs 1.A through 1.C. of that SB to comply with the AD.

Japan Airlines and Korean Air requested that we add the previously approved AMOCs to the AD. The commenters referenced two previously approved AMOCs related to taking credit for the inspections required by AD 2005-25-09 (70 FR 73358, December 12, 2005), and use of the disk replacement repair included in the PW4000 Engine Cleaning Inspection and Repair (CIR) Manual to return non-cracked stages of the drum rotor disk assembly to service.

We do not agree. We did not list the previously approved AMOCs in the proposed AD because paragraph (j) of the proposed AD already allows use of previously approved AMOCs to paragraph (f) of the existing AD. Paragraph (f) was specified because the content of this paragraph did not change in the proposed AD supersedure. We did not change the AD.

Atlas Air requested that we revise paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed AD to remove only the cracked disk in the HPC drum rotor disk assembly from service. The commenter stated that currently paragraph (f)(2) requires the entire drum rotor disk assembly to be removed from service if a crack is found. The commenter believes it would be acceptable to remove from service only the cracked disk in the drum rotor disk assembly and use the repair in the PW4000 Engine CIR manual to replace it with a serviceable disk.

We partially agree. We agree that an acceptable level of safety would be maintained by returning the other stages of the drum rotor disk assembly to service if they were not cracked, if the cracked stages of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly were replaced by new disks per the disk replacement repairs in the PW4000 Engine CIR manual. We do not agree with revising the proposed AD because this is already an approved global AMOC covered under paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. We did not change the 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.

We estimate that this AD will affect 911 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform an inspection using an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. We estimate that there are 770 PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ engines that will require replacement of 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals, at a parts cost of $3,000 per engine. No additional labor is assumed when the replacement is done at piece-part exposure of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly. The replacement parts cost of the redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly is $630,000. Based on these figures, we estimate that the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators will be $2,387,435.

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 have 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 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:

History

On Monday, February 6, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify RNAV route Q-62 in Northeast United States by extending it further west (77 FR 5733). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on this proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by extending high altitude RNAV route Q-62 to the west to include the WATSN and DAIFE fixes. This action links the WATSN and HALIE RNAV STARs serving Chicago O'Hare International Airport, IL, with the high altitude route and establishes a seamless transition for westbound air traffic from the New York metropolitan area into the Chicago O'Hare International Airport, IL, terminal area. Additionally, this action reduces ATC system complexity, air traffic controller and pilot workload, voice communication requirements, and aircraft fuel consumption. It also expands the use of RNAV within the NAS.

High altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure of RNAV routes as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA has determined that this action is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation according to FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 311a, 311b, and 311i. The implementation of this action will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with paragraph 304 of Order 1050.1E.

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

For the complete explanation of the background of this rule, including the rationale for the change, the authority of the Department of State (“Department”) to make the fee changes in question, and an explanation of the study that produced the fee amounts, consult the prior public notices: 77 FR 18907 (March 29, 2012); 77 FR 20294 (April 4, 2012); and 75 FR 14111 (March 24, 2010).

The Department published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 18907, March 29, 2012) amending 22 CFR parts 22 and 42. Specifically, the rule made changes to the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services for visa fees and provided 60 days for comments from the public. During the comment period 18 comments were received, either by email or through the submission process at www.regulations.gov . The Department analyzed these 18 comments and reproduces that analysis in the Analysis of Comments section below.

This rule finalizes the following fees for the categories below, as determined by the Cost of Service Model (CoSM), which took effect on April 13, 2012.

The interim rule was published for public comment on March 29, 2012. During this period, the Department received 18 comments/questions. The following analysis addresses these 18 comments.

Four comments were questions regarding when the fee changes took effect. To answer: applicants paid the fee amount that was effective on the date they paid the fee. Receipts for fees paid under the prior fee schedule were accepted for 90 days following the effective fee change (i.e., July 12, 2012). In short, if a fee was paid on or before April 12, 2012 the receipt for the prior fee was valid until July 12, 2012. If a fee was paid April 13, 2012 or later, an applicant paid the new fee.

Four comments criticized the increase of the nonimmigrant visa application processing fee, arguing that the increase would make it more difficult for visitors to bring their families to the United States to visit. Although the Department understands the financial difficulties that may result from a fee increase, the Department must recover the cost of providing those services and sets the fees for those services accordingly, including nonimmigrant visa application processing fees.

Seven comments from H-2 employers opposed the H visa fee increase from $150 to $190. Those comments stated that the fee increase would be an added tax burden and competitive disadvantage for U.S. domestic food producers who compete in a global marketplace. The comments also stated that increasing the cost of the H-2 visa to fund expanded adjudication capacity and physical infrastructure improvements at consulates in China and Brazil was unfair because very few H-2 workers come from either of these countries. In addition, the comments questioned whether the H-2 fee increase would lead to any improvements in the H-2 program, particularly in Mexico where most employers hire their H-2 workers.

The Department is adjusting the processing fee for H-category visas from $150 to $190 because processing an H visa application requires a review of extensive documentation and a more in-depth interview of the applicant than for other categories of nonimmigrant visas. Because the fees are set based on cost, a more time-consuming process necessarily will result in a higher fee. Although some of the comments expressed the belief that adjudicating H category visas should require simpler processing for repeat applicants, the Cost of Service Model (CoSM) showed that H visas require more time and resources to process than others. The Department determined it would be fairer to charge a higher fee for those visa categories requiring more complex processing (H, L, O, P, Q, R, E, and K), rather than spreading those additional costs out across all other visa categories. In addition, the fees established by this rule are based on unit costs, which represent the global average costs for each service as a whole. The most recent CoSM, the activity-based costing model the Department used to determine the new processing fees, improved substantially upon prior cost of service models by identifying unit costs not just for nonimmigrant visas as a whole, but for specific visa classes that involved more work to process. The CoSM did not, however, distinguish between subcategories of visas within a single category, such as an H-1B versus an H-2. Instead, the cost model averaged together the cost of processing all subcategories within a particular category of visa, which the Department used to calculate a single processing fee for that visa category. Although the time to process individual visa applications will vary from application to application, the fee is set based on the average cost to process a visa application from that visa category.

The costs for worldwide physical upgrades and personnel increases, including in China and Brazil, were spread out across all nonimmigrant visa categories in order to keep the impact minimal. In addition to the upgrades to the Department's facilities in China and Brazil, the Department opened a new consulate facility in Tijuana in 2010 and plans to open a new facility in Monterrey in 2014. The Department also recently opened application service centers in Mexicali, Piedras Negras, and Reynosa to accommodate additional applicants along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Of the three remaining comments, one noted its support for the reduced K visa fee and one applauded the Department for decreasing consular fees on certain nonimmigrant, immigrant, and special visa services, while also expressing concern for the increases to the other visa categories. One comment expressed a desire for a discount on all minor NIVs, not just minor BCCs. We note that the Department is required by law to set the fee for the minor BCC below cost at $15. The same requirement does not apply to other minor NIVs, which the Department sets on the basis of cost as described more fully above.

The Department has adjusted the fees to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet the costs of providing consular services in light of the CoSM's findings. Pursuant to OMB guidance and federal law, the Department endeavors to recover the cost of providing services that benefit specific individuals rather than the public at large. See OMB Circular A-25, sections 6(a)(1), (a)(2)(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701(b). For this reason, the Department has adjusted the Schedule.

For a summary of the regulatory findings and analyses regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the findings and analyses published with the interim final rule, which can be found at 77 FR 18907, which are adopted herein. The rule became effective April 13, 2012. As noted above, the Department has considered the comments submitted in response to the interim final rule, and does not adopt them. Thus, the rule remains in effect without modification.

In addition, as noted in the interim final rule, this rule was submitted to and reviewed by OMB pursuant to E.O. 12866. The Department of State has also considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

Accordingly, the Interim Final Rule amending 22 CFR parts 22 and 42 which was published at 77 FR 18907 on March 29, 2012, is adopted as final without change.

Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose no additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose no additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

It has been determined that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

It has been determined that the Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:

Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose no additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Section 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”. It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:

BNSF Railway has requested that the draw of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1 (Ballard-Salmon Bay), be locked in the closed position and not be required to open for the passage of vessels for a 12 day period to facilitate heavy maintenance on the bridge. The bridge provides 43 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water while in the closed position. Under normal operations this bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5 and 33 CFR 117.1051(c). The deviation period is from 7 a.m. November 7, 2012 through 5 p.m. November 18, 2012. This deviation allows the draw span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1, to remain in the closed position and to not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. November 7, 2012 through 5 p.m. November 18, 2012. This time frame was selected because it corresponds with the closure of the Army Corps of Engineering Hiram M. Chittenden lock immediately upstream or inland of the bridge on the Lake Washington Ship Canal. This stretch of the Lake Washington Ship Canal experiences heavy waterway usage and is utilized by vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to pleasure craft. Mariners have been notified and will be kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Due to the nature of work being performed the draw span will be unable to open for maritime traffic during this maintenance period.

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

On May 21, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carlin Bayou, LA” in the Federal Register (77 FR 29927). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The LDRR vertical lift span bridge crosses the Carlin Bayou at mile 6.4 in Delcambre, Iberia Parish, Louisiana. The bridge is currently maintained in the open-to-navigation position, closing only for the passage of rail traffic. The railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of two feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed-to-navigation position. The adjacent highway bridge has a vertical clearance of four feet above MHW in the closed-to-navigation position.

Due to the limited number of trains using the rail line, the bridge owner will maintain the bridge in the fully open position for navigation, only lowering the bridge for the passage of trains as needed. This operating schedule allows vessels to transit the waterway as they normally would while permitting railroad personnel to lower the bridge in conjunction with the existing highway bridge immediately adjacent to the railroad bridge so that the bridge will not be lowered if a vessel is transiting on the waterway.

Maintaining the bridge untended and in the open-to-navigation position also eliminates the need for a bridge tender. This rule codifies the current bridge operating practice and brings it into compliance with 33 CFR part 117.41(b)(1).

As part of the NPRM process, a 60-day comment period was provided to allow for comments regarding the proposed change. No comments were received and no changes were made to the rule as proposed.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number 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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it codifies the current operating schedule for the LDRR bridge which is already understood, known and accepted by the local bridge and waterway users. Very few vessels will be impacted as the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass trains two times a day, three days a week.

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 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels wishing to transit Carlin Bayou above mile 6.4. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass two times a day, three days a week.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only codifies the existing operation of the draw and there have been no documented economic impacts to small entities with regards to the present operation of the bridge.

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 , 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that 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 (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The New Jersey Transit, owner and operator of the Shark River Railroad Bridge across the Shark River (South Channel), mile 0.9, at Avon, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.751, to accommodate stringer replacement for the Shark River Bridge.

The Shark River Railroad Bridge across the Shark River, mile 0.9, is a bascule lift Bridge, in Avon Township, NJ, and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet, above mean high water.

Because the draw of the Shark River bridge operates in unison with the S71 bridge, mile 0.8, and the S35 bridge, mile 0.9, all across Shark River at Avon Township, NJ, the draws of these two bridges will also be restricted under this deviation. These bridges are also bascule lift bridges and have a vertical clearance of 13 and 10 feet respectively.

The current schedule the Shark River Railroad Bascule Bridge operating regulations are set out in 33 CFR 117.751. Under normal operating conditions, the draws of S71 bridge, mile 0.8, the railroad bridge, mile 0.9, and the S35 bridge, mile 0.9, all at Avon, operate as one unit.

Under this temporary deviation, the above mentioned drawbridges will be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for the half hour opening requests and only open on the hour from 11:00 p.m. Friday September 21, 2012 to 6:00 a.m. on Monday September 24, 2012 and Friday September 28, 2012 to 6:00 a.m. on Monday October 1, 2012 to accommodate stringer replacement.

Vessels able to pass under the spans when closed may transit under the drawbridges while they are in the closed position. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution. The Coast Guard will inform mariners and other users of the waterway through local broadcast Notices to Mariners. These broadcasts will include information of the limited operating schedule for the drawbridge so that vessels can rearrange their transit in order to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. There are no alternate routes for vessels and the bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency.

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

On May 21, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Alabama River, AL” in the Federal Register (77 FR 29924). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The MNBR swing span bridge crosses the Alabama River at mile 205.9, at Selma, Dallas County, Alabama. The bridge is currently maintained in the closed-to-navigation position, opening only for the passage of marine traffic. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 26 feet above ordinary high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. No alternate routes are available.

Due to the limited number of openings of the drawbridge, an average of one opening per year, the bridge owner requested a change to the operating schedule that would allow the bridge to open on signal if at least 24-hour advanced notification is given. Presently, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels; however, three other bridges on the waterway open on signal if at least 24-hour advanced notification is given. The existing bridges are located at mile 105.3, at Coy, Alabama, and mile 277.8 and mile 293.3, both in Montgomery, Alabama.

As part of the NPRM process, a 60-day comment period was provided to allow for comments regarding the proposed change. No comments were received and no changes were made to the rule as proposed.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number 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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Very few vessels will be impacted. Those few vessels should be able to provide adequate advanced notification of their arrivals as is already done on this waterway for three other movable bridges located upstream and downstream of this bridge.

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 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Alabama River above mile 205.9. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because these few vessels should be able to provide adequate advanced notification of their arrivals as is already done on this waterway for three other movable bridges located upstream and downstream of this bridge.

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 , 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that 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 (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

On May 1, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, AL” in the Federal Register (77 FR 25655). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The MNBR vertical lift span bridge crosses the Tombigbee River at mile 128.6 (Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6), Naheola, Marengo and Choctaw Counties, Alabama. The bridge is currently maintained in the open-to-navigation position, closing only for the passage of rail traffic. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 12.2 feet above ordinary high water (OHW), elevation 64.5 feet, in the closed-to-navigation position and 55 feet above OHW in the open-to-navigation position. Many of the vessels using the waterway transit under a fixed span of the bridge at periods of lower water due to the difficulty of transiting the navigation span, which only has a horizontal clearance of 150 feet between piers.

Due to the limited number of trains using the rail line in this area, maintaining the bridge in the fully open-to-navigation position and only lowering the bridge for rail traffic is the preferred operating schedule. Because this operating schedule has been in place for over ten years, and is understood and accepted by local traffic, the bridge owner requested that the Coast Guard publish the current operating schedule. This operating schedule allows vessels to transit the waterway normally while permitting railroad personnel to lower the bridge for the passage of train traffic after ensuring that no vessels are approaching the bridge.

Maintaining the bridge untended and in the open-to-navigation position also eliminates the need for a bridge tender. This rule codifies the current bridge operating practice and brings it into compliance with 33 CFR part 117.41(b)(1).

As part of the NPRM process, a 60-day comment period was provided to allow for comments regarding the proposed change. No comments were received and no changes were made to the rule as proposed.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number 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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it codifies the current operating schedule for the MNBR bridge which is already understood, known and accepted by the local bridge and waterway users. Very few vessels will be impacted as the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass trains two times a day, five days a week.

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 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 wishing to transit the Tombigbee River above mile 128.6 with vessel air drafts that would require the bridge to be open to navigation for them to pass safely through the bridge site. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass two times a day, five days a week.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only codifies the existing operation of the draw and there have been no documented economic impacts to small entities with regards to the present operation of the bridge.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 , 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that 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 (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section Symbol USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard is only codifying the known and accepted operation of the drawbridge that has been automated for over 50 years. Publication of the automated operation of the drawbridge will not modify the present operation of the bridge and mariners will notice no changes in the way the bridge operates for the passage of vessels. Therefore, it is unnecessary to provide the notice and comment period for this rule.

For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (FR). The bridge has been operating under the automated system for over 50 years. Mariners presently understand that the bridge will remain in the open position and only be lowered for the passage of trains. They also understand that no tender is located at the bridge and the operation of the bridge is automated. The bridge is commonly referred to as the “Yo-Yo” bridge because of the automated operation of the bridge. This rule only codifies the operation of the automated bridge in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Therefore, providing a 30 day notice before making this rule effective is unnecessary.

The AGR vertical lift span (Yo-Yo) bridge across the Black Warrior River, mile 219.0, at Demopolis, AL, is currently maintained in the open-to-navigation position, closing only for the passage of rail traffic. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 18 feet above the Bridge Reference Elevation for Navigation Clearances (BRENC), elevation 79.8 feet NGVD, in the closed-to-navigation position and 62.9 feet above BRENC in the open-to-navigation position.

Due to the limited number of trains using the rail line in this area, maintaining the bridge in the fully open-to-navigation position and only lowering the bridge for rail traffic is the preferred operating schedule. The system for operation of the bridge is an automated system in place since 1961. The method of operation for the bridge to remain open to navigation and to signal and then close for the passage of a train and then to automatically reopen has been understood by mariners for over 50 years. Due to this method of operation, the bridge is commonly known as the Yo-Yo Bridge. Because this operating schedule has been in place for over 50 year and is understood and accepted by local traffic, the bridge owner requested that the Coast Guard publish the current operating schedule. This operating schedule allows vessels to transit the waterway as normal while permitting the bridge to lower for train traffic after ensuring that no vessels are approaching the bridge.

The automated system for operating the bridge allows the bridge to operate efficiently while remaining untended and in the open-to-navigation position. This rule codifies this practice by publishing the known and accepted operating schedule under 33 CFR 117.42.

Under 33 CFR part 117.5, bridges are required to open on signal for the passage of vessels except as otherwise authorized or required. The Yo-Yo Bridge is currently untended and maintained in the open-to-navigation position and operates automatically to close for the passage of trains. As the bridge is presently operating as an automated drawbridge and this method of operation has been previously approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when they had oversight of the permitting and operations of drawbridges. Title 33 CFR 117.42(b) requires that, if approved, a description of the full operation of the remotely operated or automated drawbridge will be added to subpart B of this part.

This present method of operation is known and understood by the local waterway users, but this operating schedule is not reflected in the CFR. This rule publishes the known operating schedule, codifying the schedule as a Special Operating Requirement under 33 CFR part 117, Subpart B.

The automated operation of the draw of the AGR vertical lift span (Yo-Yo) bridge across the Black Warrior River, mile 219.0, at Demopolis, AL is as follows:

(a) The draw shall be maintained in the fully open-to-navigation position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it is closed for the passage of rail traffic.

(b) When rail traffic approaches, railroad track circuits will initiate the automatic bridge opening and closing sequences. (Estimated duration that the bridge will remain closed for passage of rail traffic is 10 to 15 minutes per closure.)

(c) Upon detecting approaching rail traffic, the track circuits will initiate bridge closing warnings consisting of continuous horn blowing and the navigation lights changing to flashing yellow. Photo-electric (infrared) boat detectors will monitor the waterway beneath the bridge for the presence of vessels.

(d) At the end of a six-minute warning period, if no vessels have been detected by the boat detectors, the bridge lowering sequence will automatically proceed taking approximately two minutes to complete. As soon as the bridge leaves the up position, the horn will silence but the navigation lights change to flashing red.

(e) Upon passage of the rail traffic, the bridge will automatically open unless another movement is detected. The navigation lights will continue to flash red until the bridge has returned to the full open position at which time they will change to steady green.

(f) The bridge can also be operated from two locked trackside control locations (key releases) on the approach spans, one on each side of the movable span.

(g) To request openings of the bridge when the lift span is in the closed-to-navigation position, mariners may contact the AGR via VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 205-654-4364.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number 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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

This rule codifies the current operating schedule for the AGR bridge which is already understood, known and accepted by the local bridge and waterway users. Very few vessels will be impacted as the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels wishing to transit the Black Warrior River above mile 219.0 with vessel air drafts that would require the bridge to be open to navigation for them to pass safely through the bridge site.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to pass.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 , 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 would call 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

This rule would not affect 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 rule is not a `significant energy action' under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 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.

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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that 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 simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

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

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

(ii) The initials DAQ mean or refer to Division of Air Quality.

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

(iv) The initials GHGs mean or refer to greenhouse gases.

(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air quality standards.

(vi) The initials NDAC mean or refer to North Dakota Administrative Code.

(vii) The initials NDCC mean or refer to North Dakota Century Code.

(viii) The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

(ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.

(x) The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

(xi) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.

(xii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

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

(xiv) The initials SSM mean or refer to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These requirements are set out in several “infrastructure elements,” listed in section 110(a)(2).

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time a state develops and submits its SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions a state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. 1 North Dakota submitted revisions to its SIP on April 6, 2009, which are being approved and are included in the state's infrastructure checklist and certification, dated November 23, 2009, that its infrastructure SIP requirements are met for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

On April 16, 2012 EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of North Dakota. The NPR proposed approval of elements (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) and conditional approval of element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In the NPR, we discussed our reasons for our proposed approval and conditional approval. We are completing our proposed action for the reasons given in the NPR. However, we find it appropriate to further explain our conditional approval for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

In the NPR, we noted the link between element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128 of the CAA. We then presented three considerations for implementing section 128 and applied these considerations to North Dakota's situation. We concluded that North Dakota, as a state without a board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the Act, was not subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(1), and was obliged to submit a SIP revision to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(2). We briefly described procedures that North Dakota has committed to submit as a SIP revision, procedures which were detailed in North Dakota's commitment letter in the docket, and we then briefly stated that, due to a requirement for recusal, the procedures were more stringent than the minimum requirements of 128(a)(2). As a result, we proposed conditional approval of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In this notice, EPA completes that conditional approval, and finds it appropriate to further explain how the elements of North Dakota's procedures satisfy the requirement for adequate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. This explanation is not intended to imply that any other, different approaches would or would not meet the requirements of section 128(a)(2). Thus, EPA corrects our statements in the proposal to the extent they imply that North Dakota's procedures necessarily exceed the minimum requirements of section 128(a)(2), but we do not change the conclusion that the procedures meet these requirements.

Turning to our explanation, we first note that the set of persons to which the SIP revision will apply is adequate. As explained in our proposal, in a situation such as North Dakota's, in which there is no board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the Act, section 128(a)(2) then applies to the “head of an executive agency with similar powers,” that is, the head of an executive agency that approves permits or enforcement orders under the Act. As further explained in our proposal, this requirement should extend to any lower officer of an executive agency who is delegated authority by the head of the executive agency to approve permits or enforcement orders, or who is directly vested with this authority by statute. North Dakota has committed to, in its SIP revision, making the procedures applicable to any person in the State agency who approves permits or enforcement actions under North Dakota's implementation of the Act. This is sufficiently broad to include such lower officers.

Second, the North Dakota procedures address an adequately broad set of potential conflicts of interest. Under the procedures, a conflict of interest is defined as the conflict between the duties of the person subject to the procedure and the self-interest or other interests of the person. The procedures additionally state that persons subject to it must avoid any interest, influence, or relationship that might conflict or appear to conflict with the best interests of the state agency or the state, or that might affect the person's working judgment or loyalty. Because the procedures are not limited to the self-interest of the person but also include other interests, influences, and relationships, they extend beyond the minimum case where the person's own financial interest would create a conflict. In addition, because the procedures apply to interests, influences, and relationships that might appear to create a conflict or might affect the person's working judgment or loyalty, they are not dependent on a subjective standard as to whether a particular individual would actually have their working judgment or loyalty affected.

Third, the mechanics of the North Dakota procedures are adequate. The disclosure must be in writing and identify the potential conflict and its cause. The disclosure must be provided to a superior, and the person subject to the conflict must remove themselves from any negotiations, deliberations, or decisions involving the conflict. Thus, the conflict is adequately memorialized, an appropriate party is made aware of the conflict and a resolution of the conflict (e.g., recusal) is reached.

Finally, the purpose of the North Dakota procedures adequately relates to the purpose of section 128 as a whole. The overall purpose of section 128 appears to be that final decisions on permits or enforcement orders are not unduly influenced. However, as explained above, section 128(a)(1) does not apply in North Dakota's case. In such a case, it is reasonable for the state, as an alternative approach to meet the overall purpose of section 128 (and not the particular requirements of section 128(a)(1)), to require recusal in addition to disclosure. EPA therefore concludes that the SIP revision that North Dakota has committed to submit meets the requirements of section 128(a)(2) and that the North Dakota infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS should be conditionally approved for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

In this action, EPA also completes our proposed approval of portions of North Dakota's April 6, 2009 SIP submission. Specifically, EPA approves into the North Dakota SIP revisions sections 6.8, 6.11.3, and chapter 9, Air Pollution Control Rules of the State of North Dakota, and the addition of sections 1.14 and 7.7 to the Air Pollution Control Rules of the State of North Dakota.

EPA did not receive comments regarding our proposed rule for action on North Dakota's SIP submittals.

In this action, EPA is approving in full the following section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for North Dakota for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

In this action, EPA is conditionally approving section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and will fully approve this element if North Dakota takes the action detailed in the State's March 8, 2012 commitment letter, including submission of a SIP revision as described within the commitment letter, within one year after the publication date of this final action. If, however, North Dakota does not submit the SIP revisions specified in its commitment letter within one year after the publication date of this final action, EPA's conditional approval will automatically revert to disapproval of the infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In this action, EPA also approves into the North Dakota SIP revisions to sections 6.8 (Annual Network Review), 6.11.3 (Air Quality Surveillance: Ozone), and chapter 9 (Resources), Air Pollution Control Rules of the State of North Dakota, and the addition of sections 1.14 (Revisions to the Implementation Plan), and 7.7 (Air Quality Modeling) to the Air Pollution Control Rules of the State of North Dakota.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Public Notice, document DA 12-1401, released on August 24, 2012, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Notice of Commission's Implementation of Procedure of Serving Parties in an Electronic Format. The full text of DA 12-1401 will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. DA 12-1401 may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI at its Web site, www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 202-488-5300. DA 12-1401 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissions-implementation-serving-parties-electronic-format. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

By this Public Notice, CGB provided notice of the Commission's implementation of a revised procedure for it to provide service of copies of orders, pleadings, and other documents to parties to a docketed proceeding when required by statute or regulation. Henceforth, that service will be made in an electronic format, rather than by mail. This procedural change is made pursuant to § 1.47 of the Commission's Rules, as amended in 2011. On February 4, 2011, the Commission released Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, Report and Order, FCC 11-16, in CG Docket No. 11-44, published at 76 FR 24383, May 2, 2011, by which the Commission revised portions of its Part 1 practice and procedural rules and its Part 0 organizational rules to improve the efficiency of Commission decision-making and modernize the agency's processes in the digital age. Among other things, the Commission amended § 1.47 to allow the agency to serve parties to a proceeding in an electronic format (e.g., email or an Internet-based notification system such as an RSS feed). The amended rule also provides, in proceedings involving large numbers of parties, that the Commission may now satisfy its service obligation by issuing a public notice that identifies the documents required to be served and explains how parties can obtain copies of the documents. A note to the revised rule states that staff will decide the appropriate format for electronic notification in a particular proceeding, and that the Commission expects that service by public notice will be used only in proceedings with 20 or more parties. In DA 12-1401, CGB provides notice that, in docketed proceedings with fewer than 20 parties, the Commission will commence service of documents by RSS feed. Effective October 17, 2012, the Commission will discontinue mailing paper copies of documents that were previously served to parties in certain types of proceedings. Such parties should make the necessary arrangements so that they can obtain documents via RSS feed. Instructions on how to subscribe to an ECFS RSS feed may be found at: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/userManual/search/how_to_use_rss.jsp.