We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TC AD No. CF-2005-24, dated July 4, 2005, to correct an unsafe condition for Model 230 helicopters. TC advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C30S and 250-C47B engines and that three of these failures have occurred on the same engine used by Bell on Model 230 helicopters. According to TC, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71% and 92% turbine speeds.

The TC AD requires amending the RFM, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 230-05-33, dated June 10, 2005 (ASB 230-05-33).

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, TC, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Bell has issued ASB 230-05-33, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.

This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 230 RFM to limit steady-state operation between speeds of 71% and 92%.

The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, the proposed AD requires compliance within 30 days.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 12 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $516. Installing the decal would require about 0.2 work-hours and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $444. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per helicopter and $960 for the U.S. operator fleet.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TC AD No. CF-2007-13R2, dated November 10, 2009, to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model 206B (including those converted from Model 206A) and 206L helicopters. TC advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C20 engines. According to TC, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 75% and 88% turbine speeds.

The TC AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206-07-115, Revision C, dated February 4, 2009, for Model 206B helicopters (ASB 206-07-115) and Bell ASB No. 206L-07-146, Revision B, dated March 3, 2009, for Model 206L helicopters (ASB 206L-07-146).

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, TC, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Bell has issued ASB 206-07-115 and ASB 206L-07-146, which contain procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (N2) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.

This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the instrument panel below the NR/N2 dual tachometer and revising the Operating Limitations sections of the Model 206B and 206L RFMs to limit steady-state operations between speeds of 75% and 88%.

The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, the proposed AD would require compliance within 30 days.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 970 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $41,710. Installing the decal would require about 0.2 work-hours and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $35,890. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per helicopter and $77,600 for the U.S. operator fleet.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TC AD No. CF-2005-28R1, dated June 14, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters. TC advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C30S and 250-C-47B engines. According to TC, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the RFM and has provided a corresponding decal to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71.8% and 91.5% turbine speeds.

The TC AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-05-134, dated June 8, 2005.

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, TC, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Bell has issued ASB No. 206L-05-134, Revision A, dated April 9, 2007, which describes procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (N2) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual. Revision A to ASB was issued to exclude Bell Model 206L-3 and 206L-4 helicopters with 250-C20R engines installed under supplemental type certificate (STC) number SR00036SE from the requirements of ASB 206L-05-134.

This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the instrument panel below the NR/N2 dual tachometer and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 206L3 and 206L4 RFMs to limit steady-state operations between speeds of 71.8% and 91.5%.

The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, the proposed AD requires compliance within 30 days.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 525 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $22,575. Installing the decal would require about 0.2 work-hours, and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $19,425. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per helicopter and $42,000 for the U.S. operator fleet.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0940; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-26-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

On January 11, 2013, we issued AD 2013-01-07, Amendment 39-17321 (78 FR 6725, January 31, 2013), for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2D turboshaft engines. That AD requires replacing the HMU at a reduced life. That AD resulted from a low fuel pressure event caused by deterioration and a loss of the low-pressure drive function within the HMU. We issued that AD to prevent an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the engine, and possible loss of the helicopter.

Since we issued AD 2013-01-07 (78 FR 6725, January 31, 2013), further cases of deterioration of HMU rotating components have been reported before the HMU reached the replacement interval in that AD. Also since we issued AD 2013-01-07, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued AD 2013-0079, dated March 22, 2013. EASA's AD imposes the same reduced life as AD 2013-01-07, and, also requires inspections of the HMU.

We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A292 73 2847, Version B, dated March 6, 2013. The Alert MSB describes procedures for inspecting and/or replacing the HMU.

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

This proposed AD would maintain the existing AD requirements of AD 2013-01-07 (78 FR 6725, January 31, 2013), and would also require inspections of the HMU.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 56 Arriel 2D turboshaft engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about two hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts would cost about $14,400 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators is $815,920.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the aviation authority for France, has issued AD No. F-2006-020 for Model AS 332 L2 helicopters and AD No. F-2006-021 for Model EC 225 LP helicopters, both dated February 1, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition in those model helicopters. The DGAC ADs require conducting visual checks after the last flight of each day for cracks in the outer skin paneling and the butt strap of the MGB sliding cowling left and right attachment points on Frame 5295. If a crack is found in the outer skin paneling Zone 2, then the DGAC ADs require visually inspecting the corresponding Zone 2 of Frame 5295 for a crack and suspending all flights if a crack is found. If no crack is found through visual inspections, the DCAG ADs provide instructions for further inspections and repairs. Issues with the outer skin paneling were resolved by the time the FAA certificated the EC225 on January 30, 2008.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, issued AD No. 2006-102-E, which superseded DGAC AD F-2006-021, and AD No. 2006-103-E, which superseded DGAC AD F-2006-020. Both EASA ADs are dated April 25, 2006. AD Nos. 2006-102-E and 2006-103-E retain the requirements of the DGAC ADs but expand the area to be inspected.

EASA then issued AD No. 2006-0163, dated June 9, 2006, to supplement the requirements of AD Nos. 2006-102-E and 2006-103-E by mandating that the bolts securing the front and rear of the MGB bar attaching fittings be inspected for tightening torque loss. According to EASA, analysis of the tightening torques revealed some cases of tightening torque loss, which can lead to the formation of a crack at the MGB bar attaching fittings. EASA subsequently issued AD No. 2006-0163 R1, dated December 13, 2007, which revises and replaces AD No. 2006-0163, retaining its requirements but extending the compliance interval for inspecting the bolts on Model EC 225 LP helicopters.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.65, Revision 0, dated March 28, 2006, for Model AS332L2 helicopters, and ASB No. 05A002, Revision 1, dated December 6, 2007, for Model EC225LP helicopters. The ASBs specify inspecting the tightening torque of the bolts that secure the front and rear of the MGB bar attaching fittings. If more than a 20 percent tightening torque load loss is discovered, the ASBs require inspecting the frames 3855 and 5295 for a crack in the area of the MGB bar attaching fittings. EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 2006-0163 R1, dated December 13, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the tightening torque value of the bolts that secure the front and rear MGB suspension bar attaching fittings. If the torque value is out of tolerance 20 percent or less, then the proposed AD would require that each bolt be re-torqued to the proper value. If the torque value is out of tolerance more than 20 percent, then this proposed AD would require re-torqueing each bolt to the proper value and inspecting the bolts, frame, and related equipment for a crack. If a cracked bolt is detected, this AD would require replacing all four attaching fitting bolts. If a crack in the frame or other equipment is detected, this proposed AD would require repairing or replacing the cracked frame and other equipment.

This AD differs from the EASA AD in that we use the word “inspect” to describe actions required by a mechanic versus the word “check,” which is how we describe actions allowed by a pilot. We also require that if you find a crack in a frame or fitting, you repair or replace the cracked part instead of contacting the manufacturer. Also, we have different compliance times for the initial inspection for the tightening torque of the bolts that secure the MGB attaching fitting.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:

• Inspecting the torque of each bolt that secures the front and rear MGB attaching fitting would require 1 work-hour and no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter, and $340 for the U.S. fleet.

• Readjusting the torque would add another 0.25 work-hour for a total cost of about $21 per helicopter.

• Replacing all four nuts and bolts of an attachment fitting would require 4 work-hours. Parts would cost $1,000 for a total cost of $1,340 per helicopter.

• Replacing the attachment fitting or plate would require 16 work-hours respectively. Parts would cost $2,000 respectively for a total cost of $3,360 to replace each part per helicopter.

• Replacing frames 3855 and 5295 would require 40 work-hours respectively. Parts would cost $5,000 to replace each frame for a total cost of $8,400 per frame per helicopter.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TC AD No. CF-2005-25, dated July 5, 2005, to correct an unsafe condition for Model 430 helicopters. TC advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C30S and 250-C47B engines and that a similar turbine wheel is installed on the 250-C40B engine used by Bell on Model 430 helicopters. According to TC, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and has provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71% and 91% turbine speeds.

The TC AD requires amending the RFM, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-05-34, dated June 10, 2005 (ASB 430-05-34).

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, TC, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Bell has issued ASB 430-05-34, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.

This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 430 RFM to limit steady-state operations between speeds of 71% and 91%.

The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, the proposed AD requires compliance within 30 days.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 37 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $1,591. Installing the decal would require about 0.2 work-hours and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $1,369. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per helicopter and $2,960 for the U.S. operator fleet.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

With respect to TRICARE Prime enrollment fees, the regulation (32 CFR 199.18(c)) currently includes the following provision: “The specific enrollment fee requirements shall be published annually by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), and shall be uniform within the following groups: dependents of active duty members in pay grades of E-4 and below; active duty dependents of sponsors in pay grades E-5 and above; and retirees and their dependents.” There is no enrollment fee for active duty dependents. The annual enrollment fee for retirees and their dependents since the program began was $230 per person or $460 per family until FY 2012. In FY 2012, the Department of Defense implemented a modest increase ($2.50 per person or $5.00 per family per month) in the enrollment fees for retirees and their dependents to $260 per person or $520 per family, followed by annual indexing. For FY 2013, the fee was increased per the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 using the same Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) percentage (3.6%) used to increase military retired pay. This increased the fees for FY 2013 to $269.38 per person or $538.56 per family.

Although the increases have been modest, TRICARE intends to exempt from this increase Survivors of Active Duty Deceased Sponsors and Medically Retired Uniformed Services Members and their Dependents enrolled in Prime. The enrollment fees for the current beneficiaries in these categories would remain at their current rate. The beneficiaries added to these categories on or after 10/1/2013 would have their fee frozen at the rate in effect at the time they are classified in either category and enroll in Prime or, if not enrolling, at the rate in effect at the time of enrollment. The fee remains frozen as long as at least one family member remains enrolled in TRICARE Prime and there is not a break in enrollment. To allow this exemption to be implemented, a change to the regulation is needed to authorize an exception to the general rule that the enrollment fees “shall be uniform” for the group of retirees and their dependents. (Survivors and medically retired members are part of the retiree group under TRICARE rules.) This proposed rule articulates that change. It provides that as an exception to the requirement for uniformity within the group of retirees and their dependents, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) may exempt Survivors of Active Duty Deceased Sponsors and Medically Retired Uniformed Services Members and their dependents from increases in enrollment fees that occur on or after October 1, 2013.

It is the Department's intent that the exemption will apply only to the beneficiaries in the two categories specified above and only if they enroll in TRICARE Prime. If a beneficiary in one of the categories does not enroll in Prime, but later elects to enroll, their rate would be frozen at the rate in effect at the time of enrollment. If a beneficiary dis-enrolls from Prime and later re-enrolls, their rate would be frozen at the rate in effect at re-enrollment. The fee charged for a dependent of a Medically Retired Uniformed Services Member would not change if the dependent was later re-classified a Survivor and remained enrolled in Prime.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require certain regulatory assessments for any significant regulatory action that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts. The Congressional Review Act establishes certain procedures for major rules, defined as those with similar major impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation that would have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will have none of those effects. Nor does it establish information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Nor for purposes of Executive Order 13132 does it have federalism implications affecting States.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CPRA Coastal Protection Restoration Authority HSDRRS Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System USACE United Stated Army Corps of Engineers COTP Captain of the Port IHNC Inner Harbor Navigation Canal GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway MM Mile Marker RNA Regulated Navigational Area A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2009-0139) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2009-0139) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the FR (73 FR 3316).

We plan to hold one public meeting on June 20, 2013, at 5 p.m. local time at Dillard University located at 2601 Gentilly Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70122. This meeting will be held in the Georges Auditorium, located in the Professional Schools and Science Building. The gate guard at this institution will instruct each participant of the exact location on the campus. The Coast Guard will draft minutes of this meeting and post them to the public docket for review. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

On May 14, 2009, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Harvey Canal, Algiers Canal, New Orleans, LA” in the Federal Register (74 FR 22722). No public meetings were held. The Coast Guard received seven comments on the proposed rule. On June 8, 2010, the Coast Guard published an interim rule entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA” in the FR (75 FR 32275) and provided responses to all comments to the NPRM. The intent behind establishing the RNA as an Interim Rule was to put into place interim restrictions providing the necessary protections at the time and until the final floodwalls and storm protection systems were completed and final specifications received. The interim rule stated that the Coast Guard would reevaluate the RNA upon completion of the USACE Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS). With the HSDRRS being fully operational for the 2013 hurricane season, the Coast Guard, with input from Federal, State and local agencies determined that the RNA is still necessary.

In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes changes to the requirements of the RNA from those in the interim rule. In developing these requirements, the Coast Guard established an RNA Work Group comprised of Federal, State, and local flood protection authorities, and port industry representatives. We held three meetings with this work group and used input from the group to address the protections still necessary and developed the restrictions to provide those protections. The minutes from those meetings are available for public viewing on the docket. In addition to the work group meetings, the Coast Guard considered the findings of joint assessments of the canal system conducted by the USACE and industry representatives through aerial over flights and patrols by waterborne assets. Also, in the drafting of this SNPRM, the Coast Guard has met formally with the USACE six times to ensure close alignment with their goals and concerns. The Coast Guard seeks public input on this SNPRM and its associated documents in the docket.

The legal basis for this SNPRM is the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S. Code 1221 et seq., as well as the Coast Guard's authority to establish RNAs under 33 CFR part 165. The purpose of this SNPRM is to permanently establish the RNA to protect floodwalls and levees in the New Orleans area from possible storm damage caused by moored barges and vessels, and to avoid flooding in the New Orleans area that could result from that storm damage.

This SNPRM proposes changes to the interim RNA to fit the needs now that the flood protection system is complete. This SNPRM builds upon the Interim Rule in place since 2010 to respond to these risks. Without this RNA, when navigational structures within the HSDRRS are to be closed because of an approaching storm, the Coast Guard would have to individually order each vessel within the subject area to depart or to comply with specific mooring arrangements. Issuing individual orders places a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard during a time when important pre-storm preparations must also be made. By proposing this rule, the Coast Guard is informing the public in advance of the restrictions and requirements for vessels in the area during periods of enforcement, thus eliminating the need for individual Captain of the Port Orders.

An additional purpose of this RNA is to aid the Coast Guard in the early identification of vessels that may not depart the RNA when required. Under the PWSA, the Coast Guard has no authority to take possession of, and move these vessels during emergency periods such as the approach of a hurricane. Rather, Coast Guard enforcement is limited to imposing civil or criminal penalties on anyone who fails to comply with the requirements of an order or regulation issued under PWSA. Therefore early identification of vessels that may be unwilling to depart the area, or unable to remain safely moored within the area during a storm, is extremely important as it will give the Coast Guard time to consider alternatives and work with interagency authorities and vessel & facility representatives to appropriately resolve the problem well in advance of a storm.

The Coast Guard received five comments to the interim rule published in 2010. Collectively, these comments requested an extended commenting period; supported the use of waivers and prearranged agreements that would permit a vessel to remain in the RNA during a closure; requested clarification on the requirements for a mooring plan or prearranged agreement; and objected to the use of an 8′ and 10.5′ storm surge as a trigger for activating the RNA. The requirements of the RNA in this SNPRM are significantly different from those of the interim rule. While these changes were not made in direct response to the submitted comments, many of the changes do address some of the issues raised by the submitted comments. For example, the technical requirements for a mooring agreement and the elimination of storm surge as a trigger for activating the RNA are described in more detail below. One comment also urged the Coast Guard to disestablish the RNA when the ACOE completed its flood control projects. However, the Coast Guard has determined that this RNA is still necessary to protect the flood control structures by ensuring that only those vessels that are safely and securely moored remain within the area during a tropical weather event.

Based on completion of the flood protection systems and the specifications for those systems as provided to the Coast Guard, and to further reduce the potential risks to the HSDRRS from floating vessels during tropical events, the Coast Guard is proposing to expand the geographic parameters of the RNA currently published at 33 CFR 165.838, and to revise the requirements related to that area. The area of the new proposed RNA includes: (1) The GIWW from Mile Marker (MM) 22 East of Harvey Locks, west on the GIWW, including the Michoud Canal and the IHNC, extending North 1/2 mile from the Seabrook Flood Gate Complex out into Lake Pontchartrain and South to the IHNC Lock; (2) The Harvey Canal, between the Lapalco Boulevard Bridge and the confluence of the Harvey Canal and the Algiers Canal; (3) the Algiers Canal, from the Algiers Lock to the confluence of the Algiers Canal and the Harvey Canal; and (4) the GIWW from the confluence of Harvey Canal and Algiers Canal to MM 7.5 West of Harvey Locks.

These additional areas include the Michoud Canal on the GIWW, which will protect the pumping stations located at the entrance of the Michoud Canal. The COTP has also included the waters extending 1/2 mile north from the Seabrook Flood Gate Complex out into Lake Pontchartrain, to further reduce the potential risk to the Seabrook Flood Gate Complex when the RNA is enforced. The Coast Guard is also proposing inclusion of the waters of the GIWW at the confluence of Harvey Canal and Algiers Canal to MM 7.5 West of Harvey Locks.

The Coast Guard proposes to enforce each portion of the RNA beginning 24 hours prior to the closure of the main gate within that portion of the flood protection system (IHNC Surge Barrier for the east portion and West Closure Complex for the west portion). Closure of main gates within the flood protection system was chosen as the RNA enforcement trigger since it signals full implementation of actions necessary to protect populated areas from hurricane-related flooding. Closure of these structures also cuts off main egress routes for vessels to comply with RNA requirements. When main gates are closed, RNA implementation needs to be complete.

If the Coast Guard received notice of closure of any or all of the flood protection structures within the HSDRRS less than 24 hours before the closure, the RNA will be enforced upon the Coast Guard receiving the notice. Additionally, in the event that a particularly dangerous storm is predicted, the COTP may require all floating vessels to evacuate the RNA beginning as early as 72 hours before predicted closure of any flood protection closure structure, or upon notice that particularly dangerous storm conditions are approaching, whichever is less. This enforcement option is intended to give the COTP the discretion to begin early enforcement of the RNA when a storm presents a greater than usual threat, to better ensure the conditions of the RNA are met. The Coast Guard has chosen not to include a specific definition of “particularly dangerous storm” at this time, however the Coast Guard does seek public comment on whether such a definition is necessary, and the factors that should be considered when determining if a storm qualifies as “particularly dangerous.”

Early in the development of this SNPRM, the Coast Guard considered including forecast wind and minimum standing water levels within the canals as triggers, in addition to gate closure, for the enforcement of the RNA. The Coast Guard wants to make sure that RNA enforcement is absolutely necessary, when water levels within the RNA are sufficiently high for a floating vessel to potentially reach HSDRRS structures with gates closed and pump stations functioning. However, at the request of the Coast Guard, USACE supplied information that resulted in the Coast Guard reassessing that position. USACE provided the Coast Guard with new critical basin water elevations indicating an increased risk to the HSDRRS from a floating vessel should water levels exceed 5ft in canals. To reach this water level, the USACE indicated that with a 9 inch rainfall event occurring within a 24-hour timeframe, water levels within the RNA located west of the Mississippi River (Harvey and Algiers Canals) could potentially increase from 3.8 ft (baseline level for West Closure Complex gate closure) to 6.0 ft. Likewise, with the same rainfall amounts occurring over the same timeframe, water levels within the RNA East of the Mississippi River could potentially increase from 3 ft (baseline level for IHNC gate closure) to 7 ft. The likelihood of these rainfall amounts occurring during a tropical event, coupled with storm path and severity forecast uncertainties, were instrumental in the Coast Guard's decision to abandon these triggers.

The Coast Guard is proposing that all floating vessels be prohibited from entering into or remaining in the RNA during the enforcement period with some exceptions. In the Interim Rule, the Coast Guard allows vessels to remain during RNA enforcement only if they have an approved waiver from the COTP. These waivers are valid for one year and require resubmission and approval each hurricane season. As a result of comments from maritime industry representatives and flood protection authorities voicing concern that an annual waiver process may be subject to differing interpretations over time, and expressing a desire for long-term consistency and predictability, the Coast Guard is proposing to transition from a waiver system to a performance-based system. This system includes minimum mooring, documentation, facility oversight, and standby towing vessel requirements for vessels to remain in certain lower risk portions of the RNA and will ensure consistent enforcement and application over the long-term.

During the period of enforcement, floating vessels may remain in the Michoud Canal at least 1/4 mile north of the intersection of the Michoud Canal and the GIWW, the GIWW from MM 14.5 EHL to MM 10 EHL, the Algiers Canal, and the Harvey Canal provided they meet the requirements proposed in this SNPRM. The USACE and the COTP agree if any vessels are allowed to remain, these areas present the least risk because of the elevation of floodwalls, distance of floodwalls from canal moorings, construction of floodwalls, presence of pumping systems to reduce canal water levels, and buildings and other obstructions between canals and floodwalls. The Coast Guard seeks comments on other areas within the GIWW that may be acceptable areas for floating vessels to remain if they meet the minimum mooring requirements. However, based upon information obtained from the USACE, the Coast Guard is not inclined to allow any floating vessels to remain within the IHNC portion of the Canal Basin due to the vulnerability of the HSDRRS to vessel strikes in this location.

During the period of enforcement, vessels may transit through the RNA en route to a destination outside of the RNA, given that there is sufficient time to do so prior to the closure of a navigational structure, or they may transit to a facility within the RNA with which they have a prearranged mooring agreement. These types of transits will be closely monitored and discussed within the Port Coordination Team activated by the COTP as part of the Maritime Hurricane Contingency Port Plan.

This SNPRM proposes to require additional information from facilities located in the RNA that intend to keep vessels at the facility during enforcement of the RNA. All facilities that have vessels intending to remain within the areas allowed within this RNA would have to develop an Annual Hurricane Operations Plan, readily available for Coast Guard and USACE inspection. For the purpose of this Rulemaking, facilities is defined as a fleeting, mooring, industrial facility or marina along the shoreline at which vessels are or can be moored and which owns, possesses, moors, or leases vessels located in the area defined by this regulation that could pose a risk to the flood protection system. This plan describes details of mooring arrangements in accordance with the mooring requirements and conditions set forth in this SNPRM and must be submitted by May 1st of each calendar year. Information that must be included in this plan includes a diagram of the facility and fleeting area, characteristics for each vessel the facility intends to keep in the RNA during enforcement, and 24-hour contact information for qualified individuals who are empowered to make on-site decisions regarding pollution response and salvage.

Also, as part of the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan, a professional engineer must clearly certify in the Hurricane Operations Plan that the mooring arrangements are able to withstand winds of up to 140 mph, a water level of eleven feet, a current of four mph and a wave height of three feet within the canal basin in the area defined in the regulatory text section of paragraph (a)(1), and withstand winds of up to 140 mph, a water level of eight feet, a current of four mph, and a wave height of two and one half feet within the canal basin in the areas defined in the regulatory text section of paragraphs (a)(2-4). The Coast Guard is proposing these standards based on discussions and technical information, including UFC 4-159 and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7, presented by the USACE at the RNA Work Group Sessions and a letter between USACE and Coast Guard which has been uploaded to the docket for review. The eleven and eight foot water levels proposed in this RNA for the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan are consistent with the USACE's recommendations in discussions with the Coast Guard. Therefore, the Coast Guard is proposing a standard consistent with maximum potential water levels within the designed HSDRRS system as defined by the USACE. The Coast Guard is proposing the 140 mph wind speed, which is the maximum American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 three second gust velocity in the New Orleans area, to decrease risk from a vessel breaking away from its mooring.

At least 72 hours prior to the predicted closure of the navigational structures, the Coast Guard is proposing that those facilities that have vessels that intend to remain within the allowable portions of the RNA must submit a Storm Specific Verification Report to the COTP New Orleans. The requirements for this report are located in the Canal Hurricane Operations Plan, which is Enclosure Six to the Sector New Orleans Maritime Hurricane Contingency Port Plan, http://homeport.uscg.mil/nola. The Coast Guard believes the COTP should have situational awareness of vessels that intend to remain within the RNA before a specific tropical event triggers RNA activation. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to capture any changes occurring since the facility prepared its Annual Hurricane Operations Plan, and permit verification that those changes meet the requirements set forth in this SNPRM. This will also enable the COTP to better determine the number of vessels required to evacuate the canals. Coast Guard Port Assessment Team members will review the information contained in the Storm Specific Verification Report to ensure alignment with the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan.

As mentioned above, one purpose of the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan is to ensure that vessels remaining within the RNA during enforcement comply with the mooring requirements of this proposed rule. Those requirements prohibit vessels from being secured to trees or other vegetation, from being moored with frayed lines, from being moored side to side unless secured to each other from fitting as close to each corner of abutting sides as practicable, etc. These mooring requirements also prescribe requirements for various types of rigging; specifically that wire rope must be of at least 11/4 inch diameter, and natural or synthetic rope must have at least the breaking strength of three parts of 11/4 inch diameter wire rope. These specifications are taken from existing mooring regulations found in 33 CFR 165.803 and are familiar within the maritime industry in the COTP New Orleans Area of Operations.

This SNPRM also requires detailed facility information be maintained on all inspections required within this SNPRM by the facility. This will ensure quality checks are provided to ensure mooring standards and configurations are adequate. These facility led inspections will be made available for COTP and USACE “verification” checks at all times during enforcement of the RNA.

The Coast Guard is also proposing a requirement for every facility with eight or more vessels that are not under their own power to maintain one tug on scene for every 50 vessels in case of an emergency.

We developed this proposed 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

In determining if this rule was a significant regulatory action, the Coast Guard considered alternatives so as not to unduly impact the segment of the economy impacted by the RNA. The Coast Guard incorporated into the regulatory requirements a provision that enables plans to be submitted with alternative minimum mooring requirements which will be reviewed by the COTP on a case-by-case basis. This provision enables the Coast Guard to review and allow mooring alternatives such as piling systems that permanently moor a vessel not intending to move from its berth that present an equal or greater level of safety under the regulation in an effort to mitigate possible regulatory and economic impacts. The Coast Guard also provided a series of questions for industry comment with the sole purpose of determining regulatory and economic impact. The questions were provided to those entities that had submitted waivers to remain in the RNA under the Interim Rule, along with the responses received, are available for public viewing in the docket.

Based on responses to the questions, the Coast Guard modified the proposed tug boat requirements for on-scene monitoring of vessels during RNA enforcement. The Coast Guard originally contemplated requiring each facility with three or more vessels to have one tug on-scene for every 25 vessels. As a result of the Coast Guard's outreach to industry with these questions and subsequent responses indicating an unnecessary economic hardship, the Coast Guard modified this requirement. This SNPRM proposes every facility with eight or more vessels to maintain one tug for every 50 vessels which significantly reduces the economic impact on industry but still provides a substantial measure of safety in the event that tugs are required in an emergency.

The Coast Guard is requesting comments on any proposed changes that may have an economic hardship from any entity that may be affected by this RNA.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or moor in the RNA during enforcement, and the owners or operators or facilities in the RNA who intend to keep vessels at their facility during enforcement of the RNA. On a case by case basis, the Coast Guard will continue to review alternatives to the minimum mooring requirements for those that have an equal or greater measure of safety. This provision supports the Coast Guard's ongoing effort to keep this rulemaking from having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore small entities have the option of remaining in place during RNA enforcement by submitting, and having approved, an alternative mooring plan that explains how the small entity intends to ensure safe conditions on the navigable waterways during a tropical event. In addition, alternate routes for vessel traffic exist for departure from the area before the RNA goes into effect.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). While the Coast Guard did solicit information from the maritime industry concerning this rulemaking, the Coast Guard did not ask questions that would meet the guidelines of a new collection of information.

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 proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a regulated navigation area as defined within this regulation, which is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2013-0260] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0260) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C sections 1221 et seq.) authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

The City of Bullhead is sponsoring the Bullhead City Regatta, which is held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Bullhead City, AZ. The proposed temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. This event involves people floating down the river on inflatable rafts, inner tubes and floating platforms. The size of vessels used would vary in length from 3 feet to 100 feet. Approximately 30,000 people would be participating in this event. The sponsor would provide 38 patrol and rescue vessels to help facilitate the event and ensure public safety.

The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone that would be enforced from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 10, 2013. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The proposed temporary safety zone would include the waters of the Colorado River between Davis Camp and Rotary Park in Bullhead City, AZ. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

We developed this proposed 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Colorado River between Davis Camp and Rotary Park between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on August 10, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a 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 proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

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

EPA, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, designated (pursuant to section 107(d)(1)) and classified certain counties in North Carolina, either in their entirety or portions thereof, as “moderate” ozone nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the Charlotte-Gastonia Area (comprised of Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties); Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point Area (comprised of Davidson, Davis (partial), Forsyth and Guilford Counties); and Raleigh-Durham Area (comprised of Durham, Granville (partial), and Wake Counties) were all designated as “moderate” ozone nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The designations were based on the Areas' 1-hour ozone design values for the 1987-1989 three-year period. The “moderate” classification triggered various statutory requirements for these Areas including included the Stage II vapor recovery requirements pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA.

Prior to the deadline for implementing the requirement of section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point and the Raleigh-Durham Areas in North Carolina attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. North Carolina had implemented all measures required at the time for moderate ozone nonattainment areas under the CAA, and with three years of data (1990-1992), demonstrated compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Subsequently, NC DENR submitted to EPA a 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and request for redesignation for the three moderate nonattainment areas. As part of the associated maintenance plans, North Carolina provided contingency measures that included regulation 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D.0953 (hereafter referred to as rule .0953), entitled Vapor Return Piping for Stage II Vapor Recovery, for all new or improved gasoline tanks. In addition, rule 15A-02D.0954, entitled Stage II Vapor Recovery (hereafter referred to as rule .0954), as part of the contingency measures that were also included in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plans. These contingency measures were never activated as the Areas continued to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the redesignation requests and the maintenance plans for the Charlotte-Gastonia Area on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34859), Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point Area on September 9, 1993 (58 FR 47391), and the Raleigh-Durham Area on April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18300).

EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of North Carolina's request to remove Stage II vapor control requirements from the contingency measures in its SIP for the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas is whether these requested actions comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. Below is EPA's analysis of these considerations.

States were required to adopt Stage II rules for all areas classified as “moderate” or worse under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that “the requirements of section 182(b)(3) (relating to Stage II gasoline vapor recovery) for areas classified under section 181 as moderate for ozone shall not apply after the promulgation of such [ORVR] standards.” ORVR regulations were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994. See 59 FR 16262, and 40 CFR 86.001 and .098. As a result, the CAA no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under section 182(b)(3), and such areas may seek SIP revisions to remove such requirements from their SIP, subject to section 110(l) of the Act. EPA's policy memorandum related to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provided further guidance on an allowance for removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states “[w]hen onboard rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revisions) consistent with its obligation under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirements of the Act.” Because North Carolina included Stage II requirements as contingency measures in its maintenance plans and is now requesting to remove these requirements, this action is subject to section 110(l) of the CAA.

Section 110(l) of the Act provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that revision interferes with any applicable requirement regarding attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any requirement established in the CAA. EPA can, however, approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP once states make a “noninterference” demonstration that such a removal or modification will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or any other CAA requirement. As such, North Carolina must make a demonstration of noninterference in order to remove the Stage II requirements from its SIP in relation to the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas.

All areas in the State are currently designated as attainment for the carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter NAAQS. Effective July 20, 2013, EPA designated the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point and Raleigh-Durham Areas as attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Charlotte-Gastonia Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in association with other counties in the Region, including a portion of a county in South Carolina. The designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088.

On September 18, 2009, NC DENR submitted a SIP revision requesting removal of the Stage II vapor recovery requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities from the North Carolina SIP. North Carolina's September 18, 2009, SIP revision includes changes to rules .0953—Vapor Return Piping for Stage II Vapor Recovery and .0954—Stage II Vapor Recovery, which EPA approved into the North Carolina SIP as contingency measures in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plans in association with the redesignation of three North Carolina Areas: Charlotte-Gastonia Area (July 5, 1995); Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area (September 9, 1993); and Raleigh-Durham Area (April 18, 1994). Specifically, NC DENR's September 18, 2009, SIP revision proposes to repeal or remove from the SIP rules .0953 and .0954, which provide Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities.

Additionally, the removal of rules .0953 and .0954 triggered subsequent amendments 1 of rules 15A NCAC 02D.0902(d)—Applicability (hereafter referred to as rule .0902(d)), 15A NCAC 02D.0909—Compliance schedules for Sources in new nonattainment Areas (hereafter referred to as rule .0909), and 15A NCAC 02D.0952—Petitions for Alterative Controls for RACT (hereafter referred to as rule .0952) in North Carolina's SIP. NC DENR's September 18, 2009, SIP revision, changes rules .0902(d), .0909, and .0952. to remove subparagraphs referencing the repealed Stage II rules .0953 and .0954.

EPA's consideration to approve North Carolina's removal of the Stage II requirements is contingent on the applicability of a section 110(l) noninterference demonstration. North Carolina never realized emission reductions in the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas as a result of the Stage II requirements that the State included as a contingency measure in the SIP. Thus removing this requirement from the contingency measures will not impact emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides in the aforementioned Areas.

Additionally, since the time of EPA's approval of these requirements in North Carolina's SIP as contingency measures for the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas, EPA has made a determination that ORVR is in “widespread use” nationwide. Specifically, on May 16, 2012, EPA made a determination that ORVR was in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. In that rulemaking, EPA estimated that approximately 70 percent of all vehicles would be equipped with on-board systems to capture these vapors by the end of 2012, thus rendering the use of Stage II vapor recovery systems redundant because, beyond that date, the refueling emissions of the motor vehicle fleet are controlled through widespread use of ORVR.

EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's September 18, 2009, SIP revision to remove Stage II rules .0953 and .0954 from the North Carolina SIP, and to amend rules .0902(d), .0909, and .0952, to reflect the removal of rules .0953 and .0954 in the State's implementation plan because the Agency has preliminarily determined that this revision is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA and will not interfere with the relevant requirements in the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas.

EPA also considered this SIP revision in relation to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibits facilities within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards. The only CAA-regulated pollutant emitted by refueling vehicles is VOC, which is a precursor of ozone, and its emissions are mitigated by the use of vehicles equipped with ORVR. As previously mentioned, EPA has previously determined that ORVR is now in widespread use and accordingly EPA views removal of the Stage II requirements from North Carolina's SIP as not contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other State with respect to a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by North Carolina for the purpose of removing Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, and Raleigh-Durham Areas. Specifically, this action proposes to remove Stage II rules .0953 and .0954 from the North Carolina SIP, and to amend at rules .0902(d), .0909, and .0952 to reflect the removal of rules .0953 and .0954 in the State's implementation plan. EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's September 18, 2009, SIP revision related to the State's Stage II rules is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations and guidance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP Revision III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the bi-state Charlotte Area as a moderate nonattainment area with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See 69 FR 23858. The bi-state Charlotte Area includes six full counties and one partial county in North Carolina and one partial county in South Carolina. The South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area consists of the portion of York County, South Carolina that falls within the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Area. The North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell County which includes Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships.1 2

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 2980, released May 30, 2013. The full text of Report No. 2980 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

Subject: Revisions to Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Govern the Use of Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft Communicating with Fixed-Satellite Service Geostationary-Orbit Space Stations Operating in the 10.95-11.2 GHz, 11.45-11.7 GHz, 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz Frequency Bands, published at 78 FR 14920, March 8, 2013, and at 78 FR 14952, March 8, 2013, in IB Docket No. 12-376, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

Number of Petitions Filed: 1

On May 17, 2013, we published a notice (78 FR 29098) announcing a positive 90-day finding on a petition to list harbor seals in Iliamna Lake, Alaska under the ESA and initiated a status review. In that notice we also solicited comments and information from the public about the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake to be considered during the status review.

We have received a request from the Bristol Bay Native Association/Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Council to extend the public comment period by a minimum of 30 days. This extension would allow the communities of Bristol Bay and Iliamna Lake more time to comment because the current schedule overlaps with their summer subsistence and commercial fishing seasons. We considered this request and concluded that a 30-day extension should allow sufficient time for responders to submit comments without significantly delaying the completion of the status review. We are therefore extending the close of the public comment period from July 16, 2013, to August 16, 2013. Although we have extended the public comment period, we are unable to extend the deadline for completing the status review. As such, we urge members of the public to submit their comments as soon as possible to allow us more time to review and incorporate the submitted information where appropriate.

The Caribbean queen conch fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council, and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

The queen conch is currently classified as an overfished species, and it is managed under a 15-year rebuilding plan. Harvest and possession of queen conch in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ is limited to the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank to the east of St. Croix, USVI, and only from November 1 through May 31 each year. The USVI has expressed interest in having Federal regulations modified to make them compatible with the territorial regulations to facilitate enforcement efforts, enhance compliance by fishers, and allow for more efficient management of the queen conch resource in the U.S. Caribbean.

Regulatory Amendment 1 to the FMP, implemented in 2011 (76 FR 23907, April 29, 2011), established a compatible seasonal closure with the USVI (from June 1 through October 31, each year), and a compatible queen conch harvest quota closure for Federal waters. The quota or annual catch limit (ACL) consists of an annual harvest of 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) for combined Federal and St. Croix waters. When that ACL is reached and the USVI closes territorial waters off St. Croix to the harvest and possession of queen conch, NMFS will concurrently close the Caribbean EEZ in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude. The EEZ closure will remain in effect until the next fishing season for territorial and Federal waters opens on November 1.

Current commercial trip limits and recreational bag limits for the harvest of queen conch in Federal waters are not compatible with USVI regulations. The current trip limit in Federal waters allows a licensed commercial fisherman to harvest up to 150 queen conch per day, but does not establish a harvest limit per vessel. USVI regulations allow the harvest of 200 queen conch per vessel per day regardless of the number of licensed fishermen on board. The daily recreational bag limit in Federal waters allows 3 queen conch per person and a maximum of 12 queen conch per vessel. In contrast, the USVI daily recreational bag limit consists of 6 queen conch per person and a maximum of 24 per vessel.

At its March 2013 meeting, the Council voted to establish a daily commercial trip limit of 200 queen conch per vessel and to leave the recreational bag limit unchanged. As the Federal recreational bag limit is less than the territorial limit, increasing the recreational bag limit would only slightly facilitate law enforcement efforts, but may negatively impact the continued health of the queen conch resource.

If implemented, this rule would revise the commercial trip limit to 200 queen conch per vessel per day instead of the current 150 queen conch per licensed commercial fisher per day.

This rule would also change the language in the codified text specifying the queen conch fishing season. This revision is intended to correct a mistake that occurred in prior rule-making (Regulatory Amendment 1), in which the sentence was restructured and a distinction was inadvertently removed. This rule would revise the codified text to its previous form. Fishing for queen conch is only allowed from November 1 through May 31, and only in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, USVI. In the rest of the Caribbean EEZ, there is a prohibition on the harvest and possession of queen conch. Changing the text to its previous form reflects the original and current intent of the Council.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory amendment, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise the commercial trip limit for queen conch in the Caribbean EEZ. This rule would also implement an administrative change to the regulations regarding the queen conch season. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This proposed rule would not establish any changes to current reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements.

This rule, if adopted, would be expected to directly affect commercial fishermen in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, who harvest queen conch. Queen conch harvest in the EEZ in the U.S. Caribbean is restricted to the Lang Bank area off St. Croix and all queen conch harvest from this area is believed to be landed in St. Croix because of the prohibitive travel distances that would be required to land in other locations. As a result, the assessment of the number of commercial entities expected to be affected by this rule is based on St. Croix commercial trip ticket data.

The USVI fishing year for all species is July 1 through June 30. Over the 2009/2010 through 2011/2012 fishing years, an average of 40 fishermen (range of 30-48) per fishing year recorded landings of queen conch in St. Croix. The average total revenue per fishing year from the harvest of all marine species (queen conch and all other species) by these fishermen was approximately $2.6 million (nominal or un-inflated dollars), or approximately $64,000 per fisherman ($2.6 million/40). These estimates include all fishermen with recorded queen conch landings in St. Croix, regardless of where the queen conch were harvested (EEZ or territorial waters). Precise comparable estimates for fishermen who harvested queen conch in the EEZ are not available because the area of harvest was not provided on all trip tickets (area fished was not reported on trip tickets that accounted for approximately 11 percent of the average queen conch harvest per fishing year). However, an average of 17 fishermen (range of 9-23) per fishing year reported queen conch harvests from the EEZ. The average total revenue from the harvest of all marine species by these fishermen during this period was approximately $1.0 million (nominal or un-inflated dollars), or approximately $60,000 per fishermen ($1.0 million/17).

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Both average revenue estimates, approximately $64,000 for all fishermen with commercial queen conch landings and approximately $60,000 for fishermen who reported harvesting queen conch from the EEZ, are significantly lower than the SBA threshold. As a result, all commercial fishermen expected to be affected by this proposed rule are determined, for the purpose of this assessment, to be small business entities.

This rule, if adopted, would increase the number of queen conch that could be harvested per vessel per trip if one licensed commercial fisherman is on board the vessel and decrease the allowable harvest if multiple licensed commercial fishermen are on board. However, 2 percent or fewer of the trips that harvest queen conch are believed to carry multiple licensed commercial fishermen and no licensed commercial fishermen are known to exclusively fish with other licensed commercial fishermen on board. As a result, the effects of increasing the allowable queen conch harvest per vessel per trip on trips with a single licensed commercial fisherman on board would be expected to account for the majority of the impacts.

The net direct economic effects of this proposed rule cannot be quantified with available data. Increasing the number of queen conch that could be harvested per vessel per trip would be expected to increase the average daily harvest and associated revenue per trip for trips on which queen conch are harvested. Total operating costs could be reduced if fishermen take fewer trips to harvest the queen conch ACL. An increase in the revenue per trip and a decrease in operating costs would result in an increase in profit to affected small entities.

The queen conch commercial ACL in St. Croix is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) and queen conch harvest and possession in the EEZ is prohibited when the St. Croix ACL is reached. As a result, the total average annual revenue to all commercial fishermen from queen conch harvest would not be expected to be affected by this proposed rule other than as a result of a possible reduction in average price if increased harvest rates result in a derby fishery and depress prices. However, of the estimated average 40 fishermen who harvest queen conch per year, only an estimated average of 17 fishermen per year harvest queen conch in the EEZ. Additionally, closure of the fishery due to the ACL being reached has only occurred once since the 2008/2009 fishing year and because approximately two-thirds of the total queen conch harvest in St. Croix comes from territorial waters, any increased harvest rate accruing in response to the proposed increase in the trip limit in the EEZ may not significantly reduce the length of the open season and, thus, have minimal to no effect on queen conch prices. Therefore, increasing the daily average harvest rate, which may occur as a result of the proposed increase in the trip limit, may have only a small effect on increasing the likelihood of the fishery closing due to the ACL being reached and/or reducing the average price for queen conch.

In addition to the effects described in the previous paragraph, fishing for, and revenue from, other species may increase as a result of this proposed rule, if adopted, if fishermen are able to take fewer trips to harvest the queen conch ACL and increase fishing effort for other species. However, any increase in revenue from other species would be an indirect effect of the proposed action and, therefore, outside the scope of the IRFA.

This rule, if adopted, would also change the language in the codified text specifying the queen conch fishing season. This change would correct an inadvertent change to the text that occurred in a prior rulemaking, as discussed in the preamble. The proposed revision better reflects the original and current intent of the Council. Queen conch fishing in the Caribbean EEZ has been consistent with the season specified by the proposed change and, therefore, this proposed change would not be expected to result in any economic effects on any small entities.

In summary, the average fisherman expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule would be expected to experience an increase in revenue and profit. However, neither the amount nor the significance of these increases can be determined with available data.

Although the significance of the expected change in profit to the small entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule cannot be determined, the proposed rule would be expected to increase the revenue and profit of the average small entity that would be expected to be affected. Because the expected effect of this proposed rule would be positive and not adverse, the issue of significant alternatives to minimize the adverse effects is not relevant.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows: