This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 923, as amended (7 CFR Part 923), regulating the handling of sweet cherries grown in designated counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Washington sweet cherry handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate, as issued herein, will be applicable to all assessable sweet cherries beginning April 1, 2013, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2013-2014 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.18 to $0.15 per ton of sweet cherries handled.

The Washington sweet cherry marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Washington sweet cherries. They are familiar with the Committee's needs, and the costs for goods and services in their local area, and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

The Committee met on May 21, 2013, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $65,900 and an assessment rate of $0.15 per ton of sweet cherries for the 2013-2014 fiscal period. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $64,400, and the recommended $0.15 per ton assessment rate is $0.03 lower than the rate established for the 2012-2013 fiscal period. The Committee recommended the lower assessment rate for the purpose of decreasing its monetary reserve, which was approximately $107,687 on March 31, 2013. Section 923.42(a)(2) of the order specifies that funds held in reserve must not exceed approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses. This action is expected to reduce the Committee's monetary reserve to a level acceptable under the order.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013-2014 fiscal period include $30,000 for administration and data management fees; $27,000 for Committee expenses such as travel, accounting, and compliance; $5,000 for contingency; and $3,900 for office expenses—including bonds, insurance, telephone, office equipment and supplies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2012-2013 were $20,000, $35,000, $5,000, and $4,400, respectively.

The Committee took its large monetary reserve into consideration when it developed its recommendation for the 2013-2014 assessment rate. The Committee intends for its 2013-2014 assessment revenue to be less than 2013-2014 budgeted expenses, and anticipates making up the deficit by drawing from reserve funds. By doing so, the Committee expects to reduce its monetary reserve to a level within the maximum amount allowed under the order.

The Committee estimates that Washington sweet cherry handlers will ship 160,000 tons of fruit during the 2013-2014 fiscal period. At the recommended $0.15 per ton assessment rate, the Committee expects to generate $24,000 in assessment income for the fiscal period. Income derived from handler assessments, along with approximately $41,900 from the Committee's monetary reserve, would be adequate to cover the recommended $65,900 budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal period. The Committee reported that funds held in the reserve were approximately $107,687 as of March 31, 2013. The Committee estimates that the reserve will be drawn down to $65,787 by March 31, 2014, which would be within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from either the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether a modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2013-2014 budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

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

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

There are 53 handlers of Washington sweet cherries subject to regulation under the order and approximately 1,500 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service has prepared a preliminary report for the 2012 shipping season showing that prices for the 210,000 tons of sweet cherries that entered the fresh market averaged $2,140 per ton. Based on the number of producers in the production area (1,500), the average producer revenue from the sale of sweet cherries in 2012 can therefore be estimated at approximately $299,600 per year. In addition, the Committee reports that most of the industry's 53 handlers reported gross receipts of less than $7,000,000 from the sale of fresh sweet cherries last season. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of Washington sweet cherries may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee, and collected from handlers, for the 2013-2014 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.18 to $0.15 per ton of sweet cherries. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2013-2014 fiscal period expenditures of $65,900. The quantity of assessable sweet cherries for the 2013-2014 fiscal period is estimated by the Committee to be 160,000 tons. Thus, the $0.15 per ton rate should provide $24,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The Committee recommended the assessment rate decrease for the purpose of reducing its monetary reserve, which was approximately $107,687 on March 31, 2013. With the recommended assessment rate and budget, the Committee expects to draw $41,900 from its reserve to fund its 2013-2014 fiscal period budgeted expenditures. The Committee anticipates that this action will reduce the reserve to a level that is less than approximately one fiscal period's operating expenses, the maximum permitted by the order, prior to the beginning of the 2014-2015 fiscal period.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013-2014 fiscal period include $30,000 for administration and data management fees; $27,000 for Committee expenses such as travel, accounting, and compliance; $5,000 for contingency; and $3,900 for office expenses—including bonds, insurance, telephone, office equipment and supplies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2012-2013 were $20,000, $35,000, $5,000, and $4,400, respectively.

The Committee discussed alternatives to this rule. Leaving the assessment rate at the current $0.18 per ton was initially considered, but not recommended, because of the Committee's desire to decrease the level of the monetary reserve so that it is not more than approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses.

A review of historical data and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the producer price for the 2013-2014 fiscal period could average $2,140 per ton of sweet cherries. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2013-2014 fiscal period, as a percentage of total producer revenue, is approximately 0.007 percent.

This action will decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington sweet cherry industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 21, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington sweet cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

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

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2013-2014 fiscal period began on April 1, 2013, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable sweet cherries handled during such fiscal period; (2) this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable sweet cherries beginning with the 2013-2014 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 923 is amended as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

Under the order, Washington potato handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable Washington potatoes for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on July 1, and ends on June 30.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2013, and effective on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 24981, Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0010, FV13-946-1 IR), § 946.248 was amended by decreasing the assessment rate established for Washington potatoes for the 2013-2014 fiscal year and all subsequent fiscal periods from $0.003 to $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes handled. The decrease in the per hundredweight assessment rate allows the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

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

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

There are 43 handlers of Washington potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 267 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. (13 CFR 121.201)

During the 2011-2012 marketing year, the Committee reports that 11,018,670 hundredweight of Washington potatoes were shipped into the fresh market. Based on average f.o.b. prices estimated by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Committee data on individual handler shipments, the Committee estimates that 42, or approximately 98 percent, of the handlers had annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for Washington potatoes for 2011 was $7.90 per hundredweight. The average gross annual revenue for the 267 Washington potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $326,021. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington potato producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2013-2014 fiscal year and all subsequent fiscal periods from $0.003 to $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2013-2014 expenditures of $37,400. This action will allow the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

The quantity of assessable potatoes for the 2013-2014 fiscal period is estimated at 10,000,000 hundredweight. Thus, the $0.0025 rate should provide $25,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on producers.

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington potato industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the January 30, 2013, meeting was a public meeting. All entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

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

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before June 28, 2013. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0010-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (78 FR 24981, April 29, 2013) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0132-E, dated June 25, 2013 (referred to after this as the “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Doing an inspection of the door opening sequence of the left-hand and right-hand doors of the MLG of an airplane, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, is an acceptable alternative method to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (j) and (l) of AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June 27, 2011), for that airplane.

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

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32N001-13, dated June 24, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1407, dated May 14, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. Since the issuance of FAA AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June 27, 2011), we have received a report of a MLG failing to extend during landing. We have also been notified that a certain configuration of LGCIU and actuators may result in masking of CFDS messages that are necessary to mitigate risks associated with failure of MLG extension or down-locking. This condition could possibly result in MLG collapse during landing and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0671; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-124-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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

On June 3, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Waco, TX (78 FR 33015) Docket No. FAA-2013-0136. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Waco, TX, by separating the Class D airspace area for Waco Regional Airport from the Class D airspace area for TSTC-Waco Airport, to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at both airports. TSTC-Waco Airport is removed from its current designation and established under its own designator; Waco, TSTC-Waco Airport, TX, to accommodate this separation of controlled airspace surrounding Waco Regional Airport. This enhances safety by not having multiple air traffic controllers responsible for the same airspace. Geographic coordinates for Waco Regional Airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 24, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Rickenbacker International Airport (78 FR 31428), Docket No. FAA-2013-0270. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, OH, to reflect the closure of South Columbus Airport. The exclusion of controlled airspace within a 1.3-mile radius is no longer needed and is removed from the airspace description, restoring Class D airspace to a 4.5-mile radius of Rickenbacker International Airport for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of Rickenbacker International Airport, formerly called Rickenbacker Airport, are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 1, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport (78 FR 25402) Docket No. FAA-2013-0165. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport, Sparta, WI, to reflect the exclusion of that airspace within Restricted Areas R-6901 A/B. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On June 3, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Grand Forks AFB, ND (78 FR 33016) Docket No. FAA-2013-0261. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Grand Forks AFB, ND, amending the operating hours to reflect removal of the specific effective dates and times established by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for Grand Forks AFB, Grand Forks, ND. Operating hours are now continuous, 24 hours at Grand Forks AFB. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On June 4, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D and Class E airspace for the San Marcos, TX, area, creating additional controlled airspace at San Marcos Municipal Airport (78 FR 33263) Docket No. FAA-2013-0273. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface ensuring controlled airspace exists to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument approach procedures and the decommissioning of the Garys LOM at San Marcos Municipal Airport, San Marcos, TX. Accordingly, small segments of Class D airspace extend 4.4 miles both west and north, and 5 miles northwest from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and small segments of Class E airspace extend 13.1 miles west, 11.1 miles northwest, 10.4 miles both east and south, and 9.6 miles southeast of the 6.7-mile radius of the airport for the safety and management of IFR operations to/from the en route environment. Geographic coordinates for San Marcos Municipal Airport and Lockhart Municipal Airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 24, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the Mason, TX, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Mason County Airport (78 FR 31429) Docket No. FAA-2012-1141. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to ensure that controlled airspace exists to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument approach procedures at Mason County Airport, Mason, TX. A segment is added from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to 11.8 miles north of the airport for the safety and management of IFR operations. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the Gruver, TX, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Gruver Municipal Airport (78 FR 18261) Docket No. FAA-2011-1111. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to ensure that required controlled airspace exists from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 9.6 miles southwest of the airport to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument approach procedures at Gruver Municipal Airport, Gruver, TX. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 29, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Seamans Field Airport, Factoryville, PA, (78 FR, 32212). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11 mile radius of Seamans Field Airport, Factoryville, PA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Lake Henry VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Seamans Field Airport, Factoryville, PA.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 29, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Bedford County Airport, Bedford, PA. (78 FR 32213). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.5-mile radius of Bedford County Airport, Bedford, PA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the St. Thomas VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in concert with FAAs aeronautical database.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Bedford County Airport, Bedford, PA.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On June 3, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the Commerce, TX, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Commerce Municipal Airport (78 FR 33019) Docket No. FAA-2013-0269. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface ensuring controlled airspace exists to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument approach procedures at Commerce Municipal Airport, Commerce, TX. Small segments are added from the 6.3-mile radius of the airport to 9.5 miles north and 9.3 miles south of the airport for the safety and management of IFR operations. Geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On August 22, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage AK (77 FR 50646). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Thirteen comments were received.

The commenters were concerned that the creation of Class D airspace east of the Glenn Highway might compress traffic using the Eastside VFR flyway, adversely affect pilots' situational awareness, and questioned the availability of weather information at Fort Richardson. The FAA found merit in some of these comments and issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class D airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK, but would eliminate that portion east of Glenn Highway (FR 78 34608, June 10, 2013). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Fourteen comments were received, all in support of the supplemental proposal. Subsequent to publication of the SNPRM, the FAA found that a digit was left off the first set of coordinates, and is corrected in the rule.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending upward to and including 2,900 feet MSL at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK. This action provides controlled airspace due to an increase in the complexity, volume and variety of aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the airport and improves the safety of and management of aircraft operations. A typographical error is corrected in the regulatory text for the first set of coordinates, changing it from “lat. 61°17″3′ ” to “lat. 61° 17″13′ ”.

The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On April 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Mahnomen, MN, area, creating controlled airspace at Mahnomen County Airport (78 FR 25233) Docket No. FAA-2012-1283. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to ensure that required controlled airspace exists to contain new standard instrument approach procedures within a 6-mile radius of Mahnomen County Airport, Mahnomen, MN. Controlled airspace enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

On April 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Walker, MN, area, creating controlled airspace at Walker Municipal Airport (78 FR 25234) Docket No. FAA-2013-0266. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to ensure that required controlled airspace exists to contain new standard instrument approach procedures within an 8-mile radius of Walker Municipal Airport, Walker, MN. Controlled airspace enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 24, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Wagner, SD, area, creating controlled airspace at Wagner Municipal Airport (78 FR 31430) Docket No. FAA-2013-0004. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to ensure that required controlled airspace exists to contain new standard instrument approach procedures within an 8-mile radius of Wagner Municipal Airport, Wagner, SD. Controlled airspace enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register establishing Class E en route airspace at the Tuba City VORTAC, Tuba City, AZ (78 FR 32086, May 29, 2013). In the regulatory text, the region identifier ANM was incorrect, and is now corrected to AWP.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal description as published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32086), Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-1, FR Doc. 2013-12623, is corrected as follows:

The purpose of this Final Rule is to implement for SCHs the statutory requirement that TRICARE inpatient care “payments shall be determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare.” Medicare pays SCHs the greater of the amount under the general inpatient prospective payment system method based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) or an amount based on the hospital's reported costs. TRICARE pays for most hospital care under a DRG-based prospective payment system similar to Medicare's, but exempted SCHs from this system, instead paying them billed charges. Paying billed charges is fiscally imprudent and inconsistent with TRICARE's governing statute. Paying SCHs under a method similar to Medicare's is prudent, practicable, and harmonious with the statute. The Final Rule will transition over a several year period from the current billed charge method to the new method. The transition will be gradual to reduce the impact on the SCHs. Network SCHs will have payment reductions limited to 10 percent per year. Non-network SCHs will have reductions limited to 15 percent per year.

The legal authority for this Final Rule is 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2).

Following the transition period, TRICARE will reimburse SCHs for inpatient care the higher of the DRG-based amount applicable to most hospitals or an amount approximating the SCH's costs. The cost-based amount will be determined by applying the SCH's most recent Medicare cost-to-charge ratio (CCR) to the SCH's charges. Individual claims will be paid under this cost-based method, followed by a year-end review to determine whether in the aggregate the DRG-based method would have paid more. If so, TRICARE will pay the SCH the aggregate difference.

To protect SCHs from sudden significant reductions, the Final Rule will gradually transition from the base year of paying 100 percent of allowable charges (which is either the billed charge or, in the case of network hospitals, a voluntary discounted charge) to paying the percentage equal to the Medicare CCR (generally in the range of 30 to 50 percent). The transition rules prevent a reduction of more than 10 percentage points per year for network hospitals or 15 percentage points per year for non-network hospitals. So, for example, in the case of a non-network hospital with a CCR of 40 percent, payment in the first year would be 85 percent of the base year amount; 70 percent in the second year, 55 percent in the third year, and 40 percent in the fourth and subsequent years. In the case of a network hospital with a CCR of 40 percent that had agreed to a 5 percent discount (i.e., the allowable amount was 95 percent of billed charges) in the base year, payment in the first year would be 85 percent of the base year amount, 75 percent in the second year, 65 percent in the third year, 55 percent in the fourth year, 45 percent in the fifth year, and 40 percent in the sixth and subsequent years. During each year, the resulting aggregate payment amount would be compared to the aggregate amount that would have been provided under the DRG-based system, and if that would have been more, the difference will be paid.

In response to public comments, the Final Rule includes a special payment rule for labor/delivery and nursery care in SCHs. Based on an assessment that the Medicare CCR does not accurately reflect the cost to charge ratio for these services, following the transition period, rather than applying the Medicare CCR to charges to labor/delivery and nursery DRGs, TRICARE will apply 130 percent of the Medicare CCR.

One of the purposes of the TRICARE program is to support military members and their families during periods of war or contingency operations, when military facility capability may be diverted or insufficient to meet military readiness priorities. To preserve the availability of SCHs during such periods, the Final Rule includes authority for a year-end discretionary, temporary adjustment that the TMA Director may approve in extraordinary economic circumstances for a network hospital that serves a disproportionate share of Active Duty Service members (ADSMs) and Active Duty dependents (ADDs). This same adjustment possibility is also made available to Critical Access Hospitals since they share some attributes of SCHs.

TRICARE is in the process of developing policy and procedural instructions for exercising the discretionary authority under the qualifying criteria for the GTMCPAs for inpatient services provided in SCHs and CAHs. The policy and procedural instructions will be available within 3 to 6 months following the applicability date of the new inpatient reimbursement methodology for SCHs. Hospitals will be able to request a GTMCPA approximately 14 months from the applicability date of the new reimbursement method as any GTMCPA will be based on twelve months of claims payment data under the new method. Once finalized, the policy and procedural instructions will be available in the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual at http://manuals.tricare.osd.mil. As with any discretionary authority exercised under the regulation, a determination approving or denying a GTMCPA for a hospital is not subject to the appeal and hearing procedures set forth in 32 CFR 199.10. Section 199.14(a)(8) of this final rule has been revised to clarify this point.

The economic impact of the Final Rule is to reduce DoD payments to SCHs, producing estimated DoD budgetary savings (cost avoidance) as follows:

Total FY 2013-2017: $676.1 million

In the Federal Register of July 5, 2011 (76 FR 39043), DoD published for public comment a Proposed Rule regarding an inpatient payment system for SCHs. Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), the amount to be paid to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other institutional providers under TRICARE, “shall be determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare.” Medicare reimburses SCHs for inpatient care the greatest of these aggregate amounts:

(1) What the SCH would have been paid under the Medicare DRG method for all of that hospital's Medicare discharges; or

(2) The amount that would have been paid if the SCH were paid the average “cost” per discharge at that hospital in Fiscal Year (FY) 1982, 1987, 1996, or 2006 updated to the current year for all its Medicare discharges.

TRICARE currently pays SCHs for inpatient care in one of two ways:

(1) Network hospitals: Payment is an amount equal to billed charges less a negotiated discount. The discounted reimbursement is usually substantially greater than what would be paid using the DRG method, which TRICARE generally uses to reimburse hospitals for inpatient care; or

(2) Non-network hospitals: Payment is equal to billed charges.

TRICARE's current method results in reimbursing SCHs substantially more than Medicare does for equivalent inpatient care. A change is needed to conform to the statute.

Under 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 199.14(a)(1)(ii)(D)( 6 ), SCHs are currently exempt from the TRICARE DRG-based payment system. Based on the above statutory mandate, TRICARE is adopting in this Final Rule an approach that approximates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) method for SCHs.

Establishing a TRICARE SCH inpatient reimbursement method exactly matching that of Medicare is not practicable. While TRICARE can calculate the aggregate DRG reimbursement for all TRICARE discharges by an SCH during a year, using the Medicare cost per discharge is not appropriate for TRICARE. Differences in the TRICARE and Medicare beneficiary case mix render the Medicare average cost per discharge not directly applicable for TRICARE purposes.

In addition, basing SCH reimbursement on annual updates to a TRICARE base-year average cost per discharge could result in inappropriate payments to some SCHs. At many SCHs, the number of TRICARE discharges per year is very low. Approximately half of the SCHs had fewer than 20 TRICARE discharges annually. The TRICARE average cost per discharge in one year may not be a good predictor of the average cost per discharge in a future year due to significant change in the case mix that can occur between two small sets of patients.

Alternatively, TRICARE could make payments equal to the SCH's Medicare CCR multiplied by the hospital's billed charges for inpatient services. For purposes of this rule, the Medicare CCR is the sum of Medicare's operating and capital CCRs. This would avoid making payments unrelated to case mix and would be consistent with the Medicare principle of relating payments for SCHs to cost of services. This is the approach adopted in the Final Rule.

In introducing its current SCH reimbursement method, Medicare used a 3-year phase-in period to provide the hospitals time for making business and clinical process adjustments. TRICARE will have a phase-in period with a maximum 15 percent per-year reduction from the starting point for non-network hospitals and a 10 percent-per-year reduction for network hospitals. This involves calculating a hospital's ratio of allowed charges to billed charges for TRICARE discharges and reducing that by 15 percentage points each year for non-network hospitals and 10 percentage points each year for network hospitals until it reaches the hospital's Medicare CCR. For example, if a non-network hospital has a TRICARE-allowed to billed ratio of 100 percent, it would be paid 85 percent of billed charges in year 1, 70 percent in year 2, 55 percent in year 3, and 40 percent in year 4. For a network hospital that had a TRICARE-allowed to billed ratio of 98 percent, it would be paid 88 percent in year 1, 78 percent in year 2, 68 percent in year 3, and 58 percent in year 4. It should be noted that in no year could the TRICARE payment fall below costs, as measured by the Medicare CCR (most hospitals have costs equal to 30 to 50 percent of billed charges). This transition method would approximately follow the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge physician payment system reform precedent and limit reductions to no more than 15 percent per year during the phase-in period. It also provides an incentive for hospitals to remain in the network by allowing a 5 percentage point difference in payment reductions per year. Finally, it will buffer the revenue reductions experienced upon initial implementation of TRICARE's SCH payment reform while allowing hospitals sufficient time to adjust and budget for these reductions.

TRICARE will pay an SCH for inpatient services it provides during a year the greater of two aggregate amounts: (1) What the SCH would have been paid under the DRG method for all of that hospital's TRICARE discharges; or (2) an amount equal to the SCH's specific CCR multiplied by the hospital's billed charges for inpatient TRICARE services. This will be accomplished through a year-end adjustment to the reimbursements provided during the year.

TRICARE will pay a new SCH using the average Medicare CCR for all SCHs calculated in the most recent year until its Medicare CCR is available in the CMS Inpatient Provider Specific File (PSF). For SCHs that had no inpatient claims from TRICARE prior to implementation of the SCH payment reform but do have a claim, TRICARE will pay them based directly on their Medicare CCR.

In addition to the SCH phase-in period outlined above, a GTMCPA for inpatient services will be available for TRICARE network hospitals deemed essential for military readiness and support during contingency operations. The TMA Director, or designee, may approve an SCH GTMCPA for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of ADSMs and ADDs. Specific procedures for requesting an SCH GTMCPA will be outlined in the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual.

The SCH reform encompasses all SCHs as defined by Medicare that have inpatient stays for TRICARE patients. It also include hospitals classified by CMS as EACHs because for payment purposes, CMS treats as an SCH any hospital that CMS designates as an EACH. In other words, EACHs are subject to the SCH reform in this final rule. There are two EACHs in existence: Via Christi Hospital in Pittsburg, Kansas; and Avera Queen of Peace Hospital in Mitchell SD. Both have submitted claims to TRICARE.

On August 31, 2009, we published in the Federal Register a Final Rule (74 FR 44752), which implemented a reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services provided by CAHs (i.e., reimbursing them 101 percent of reasonable costs). It was brought to our attention that there may be some CAHs that are deemed essential for military readiness and support during contingency operations. Consequently, the Proposed Rule published in the Federal Register of July 5, 2011 (76 FR 39043), also proposed a CAH GTMCPA for TRICARE network hospitals deemed essential for military readiness and contingency operations. The TMA Director, or designee, may approve a CAH GTMCPA for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of ADSMs and ADDs. Specific procedures for requesting a CAH GTMCPA will be outlined in the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual.

The TRICARE SCH Proposed Rule (76 FR 39043) published on July 5, 2011, provided a 60-day public comment period. Following is a summary of the public comments and our responses.

Comment: Several commenters stated that using the Medicare CCR is not appropriate because of differences in the type of services utilized by the TRICARE beneficiary population, as compared to the Medicare population, especially services related to labor/delivery and newborn care. These commenters stated that use of the Medicare CCR is not directly applicable for TRICARE purposes and they recommended DoD use an adjusted Medicare CCR equal to the Medicare CCR multiplied by a factor of 1.464 to more accurately account for TRICARE costs.

Response: Under the proposed transition period outlined in the Proposed Rule and adopted in this Final Rule, it will take an average of 4 to 6 years for most network SCHs to reach their Medicare CCR reimbursement level. In response to these comments, we have considered whether we should modify our proposed approach of using the Medicare CCR for all services. We analyzed data from SCH cost centers utilized by TRICARE beneficiaries, including labor/delivery and nursery to calculate a CCR for TRICARE patients, referred to as the TRICARE-specific CCR. We found that the TRICARE-specific CCR was similar to the Medicare CCR at most SCHs. However, we also found that, in addition to TRICARE patients obviously using more maternity services than Medicare beneficiaries, the labor/delivery and nursery cost centers have higher CCRs than other cost centers. We found, on average, that the TRICARE-specific CCR for nursery and labor/delivery services was 30 percent higher than the Medicare CCR. As a result, this Final Rule includes an adjustment for inpatient nursery and labor/delivery services. This adjustment will start at the end of the transition period when each SCH reaches its Medicare CCR (approximately 4 to 6 years from implementation of this Final Rule). The adjustment will be 130 percent of the Medicare CCR, rather than the Medicare CCR, for care that groups to labor/delivery and nursery DRGs.

Comment: These same commenters recommended DoD modify its approach so that TRICARE payments will be equal to the highest of the SCH's CCRs from four base years (1982, 1987, 1996, and 2006) multiplied by the hospital's billed charge for services. They further state the CCR should be adjusted to reflect TRICARE costs, as described in the above comment.

Response: Medicare does not use CCRs from these earlier years to pay SCHs. Instead, Medicare uses the cost per discharge from those years. Thus, using the highest CCR from these earlier years is not consistent with Medicare's approach. The approach proposed in this rule uses the most recent CCR data for a specific hospital which is the best reflection of a hospital's current costs relative to its billed charges, not the costs from 10-30 years ago.

Comment: One commenter requested that TRICARE clarify that SCHs will need to file requests for capital cost reimbursement.

Response: TRICARE's payment for SCHs will be based on a CCR which is equal to the sum of the Medicare operating CCR and the Medicare capital CCR. Thus, TRICARE SCH reimbursement will include capital costs and SCHs will not need to request additional reimbursement for capital.

Comment: One commenter proposed that TRICARE pay SCHs using the average Medicare cost per discharge (the highest cost per discharge from several specified base year cost reports) inflated forward using the same factor used to update TRICARE DRG payments. Due to differences between the TRICARE and Medicare case mixes, the commenter suggested that the Medicare cost per discharge value be adjusted by the ratio of the TRICARE standardized payment amount (the Adjusted Standardized Amount in the TRICARE Inpatient Prospective Payment System) to the Medicare standardized payment amount.

Response: The TRICARE and Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems use different weights and the allowed amounts per discharge are quite different due to differences in the weights and case mix. Thus, this proposed method would not be appropriate.

Comment: Two commenters recommended DoD limit its per-year reductions in payments to 5 percent for all SCHs rather than the 10 and 15 percent proposed. Another commenter requested the per-year reductions in payments be limited to 5 percent for network and 10 percent for non-network SCHs.

Response: Currently, SCHs receive TRICARE reimbursement for the most common services at more than twice the level of other acute hospitals. Under the transition period outlined in the Proposed Rule and adopted in the Final Rule, it will take an average of 4 to 6 years for most network SCHs to reach their Medicare CCR reimbursement levels. A reduction in payment of 10 percent for network SCHs and 15 percent for non-network SCHs buffers the decrease in revenues that hospitals will be experiencing during implementation of the TRICARE SCH reimbursement methodology. The transition period will allow SCHs sufficient time to adjust and budget for these reductions. The proposed payment reductions provide an incentive for hospitals to remain in the network by allowing a 5 percent difference in payment reductions per year. Additionally, reducing the payment by 5 percent per year during the transition would increase the time it will take to comply with the statute that governs TRICARE. A 10 to 15 percent reduction in payment during the transition is reasonable.

Comment: Several commenters recommended DoD incorporate into TRICARE reimbursement methodology the additional payment protections that Medicare affords SCHs, and asked that other general Medicare payment adjustments be incorporated, including the low-volume adjustment, geographic wage index reclassification, and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.

Response: When TRICARE calculates DRG payments, Medicare's geographic wage index classification will be used. With respect to DSH payments, when DoD implemented the TRICARE DRG system in 1987, the supplementary information in the Final Rule stated that we would not implement the DSH adjustment. DoD decided not to implement the DSH adjustment because the TRICARE DRG system would pay hospitals adequately for TRICARE patients. This is also true for the SCH payment methodology adopted in this Final Rule. By creating an adjustment for labor/delivery and nursery services as well as a possible GTMCPA for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of ADSMs and ADDs, hospitals are adequately compensated for care received by TRICARE beneficiaries. We believe that these specific adjustments designed to address the needs of the TRICARE beneficiaries negates the need for any additional adjustments.

Comment: Several commenters recommended TRICARE develop an Medicare Dependent Hospital (MDH) payment methodology comparable to the SCH methodology because Medicare payments to MDHs track the methodology used to reimburse SCHs. Two of these commenters also recommended TRICARE recognize the MDH classification and adopt special payment provisions for MDHs.

Response: Medicare identifies rural hospitals with less than 100 beds which have 60 percent or more of their admissions or inpatient days reimbursed by Medicare as MDHs. Under Medicare rules, a hospital cannot be both an SCH and an MDH. Under current TRICARE rules, MDHs are paid under the normal DRG payment method. The Proposed Rule for TRICARE reimbursement of SCHs did not propose a special payment method for MDHs. It is notable that having a high percentage of Medicare admissions or days does not mean the hospital has a high percentage of TRICARE admissions or days. Further, this SCH rule does not change the status-quo for TRICARE payments to MDH hospitals. Outside the scope of this rule making, TRICARE will analyze whether it is practicable and appropriate to make any changes in reimbursements to hospitals classified by Medicare as MDHs based on Medicare's payment methodology for MDHs.

Comment: One commenter requested that the rules for reimbursement remain unchanged.

Response: The statutory provision at 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) mandates that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. Based on this statutory requirement, TRICARE is adopting a method similar to Medicare's payment system for reimbursement of SCH inpatient services.

Comment: Several commenters are concerned the proposed payment methodology will result in significant cuts and compromise access to care.

Response: TRICARE will make payments equal to the SCH's specific Medicare CCR multiplied by the hospital's billed charges for inpatient services. This is consistent with the Medicare principle of relating payments for SCHs to cost of services. Following the transition, SCHs with patients in delivery and newborn DRGs will receive payments for these patients based on the level of billed charges multiplied by a factor equal to 130 percent of the Medicare CCR. Those SCHs with a high proportion of ADSMs/ADDs admissions may be eligible to receive a GTMCPA. Additionally, the phase-in period will buffer the revenue reductions and will allow hospitals sufficient time to adjust and budget for this revised reimbursement methodology. Hospitals can also become network providers, for which the percentage per-year reduction of 10 percent is a more gradual step- down than the percentage per-year reduction of 15 percent for non-network hospitals. We believe these feature are quite adequate to assure reasonable reimbursement and protect access to care.

Comment: One commenter states that TRICARE's higher inpatient payments off-set losses on outpatient services provided to TRICARE.

Response: The statutory provision at 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) mandates that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. Based on this statutory requirement, TRICARE is adopting Medicare's payment system for reimbursement of SCH inpatient services. In addition, TRICARE payments for hospital outpatient services are fully adequate.

Comment: The above commenter further states the proposed cuts will likely result in a reduction in service line offerings.

Response: We value the services offered by all hospitals and providers who treat TRICARE beneficiaries, including ADSMs, ADDs, Retirees, and our Wounded Warriors. The transition schedule in this Final Rule will reduce the effects of the transition going from a billed-charge reimbursement system to payments aligned with Medicare reimbursement levels. These provisions include a multi-year transition period and the possibility of a GTMCPA. Thus, we believe the final rule not only complies with our statutory mandate, but does so in a fair and reasonable manner to SCHs.

DoD has examined the impacts of this Final Rule as required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (January 18, 2011, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year).

We estimate that the effects of the SCH provisions that would be implemented by this rule would result in SCH revenue reductions exceeding $100 million in at least one year. We estimate the reduction in hospital revenues under the SCH reform for its first full year of implementation compared to expenditures in that same period without the proposed SCH changes, to be well below the $100 million level because of the transition features of the Final Rule. However, after several years in the transition period, the amount of revenue reductions will reach the $100 million per year threshold.

We estimate that this rulemaking is “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold and, hence, also a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a regulatory impact analysis that, to the best of our ability, presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.

Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other impacts. This Final Rule is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals are considered to be small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small business (having revenues of $34.5 million or less in any one year). For purposes of the RFA, we have determined that all SCHs would be considered small entities according to the SBA size standards. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. Therefore, this Final Rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Impact Analysis, as well as the contents contained in the preamble, also serves as the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $140 million. This Final Rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This rule will not impose significant additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3511). Existing information collection requirements of the TRICARE and Medicare programs will be utilized. We do not anticipate any increased costs to hospitals because of paperwork, billing, or software requirements since we are keeping TRICARE's billing/coding requirements (i.e., hospitals will be coding and filing claims in the same manner as they currently are with TRICARE).

This rule has been examined for its impact under E.O. 13132, and it does not contain policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.

1. The SCH reform encompasses all SCHs as defined by Medicare that have inpatient stays for TRICARE patients. It also includes hospitals classified by CMS as Essential Access Community Hospitals (EACH) because for payment purposes, CMS treats as an SCH any hospital that CMS designates as an EACH. In other words, EACHs are subject to the SCH reform in this final rule. There are two EACHs in existence: Via Christi Hospital in Pittsburg, Kansas; and Avera Queen of Peace Hospital in Mitchell SD. Both have submitted claims to TRICARE. Over a six month period, Via Christi hospital submitted about $309,000 in TRICARE inpatient claims and Avera Queen of Peach submitted about $270,000 in TRICARE inpatient claims.

2. Hospitals that are paid by Medicare and TRICARE under a cost containment waiver are not included in the SCH Reform.

Alternatives that we considered, the proposed changes that we will make, and the reasons that we have chosen each option are discussed below.

Analysis of the effects of paying SCHs using the computation of either the greater of what the SCH would have been paid under the DRG method for all of that hospital's TRICARE discharges or an amount equal to the SCH's specific CCR multiplied by the hospital's billed charges for the TRICARE services approach would reduce the TRICARE payments to these SCHs by an average of over 50 percent. This approach would pay each SCH the greater of two aggregate amounts: (1) The sum of the TRICARE-allowed amounts if all the TRICARE inpatient admissions over a 12-month period were paid using the TRICARE DRG method; or (2) the TRICARE-allowed amounts if all the TRICARE inpatient admissions over a 12-month period were paid using the CCR approach (in which the TRICARE-allowed amount for each admission is equal to the billed charge for that admission multiplied by the hospital's historical CCR). Table 3 provides our estimate of the impact of this approach without any transitions.

Because the impact of moving from a charge-based reimbursement to a cost-based reimbursement similar to Medicare's would produce large reductions in the TRICARE-allowed amounts for all types of SCHs, we considered a phase-in of this approach over a 4-year period. Under this option, the CCR portion of the approach would be modified so that the hospital's billed charge on each claim would not be multiplied by the hospital's CCR until the fourth year (when the transition was complete). In the first 3 years, the billed charges for each claim would be multiplied by a ratio so that there was an equal reduction in the ratio used each year over the 4-year transition. For example, if the hospital were receiving 100 percent of its billed charges prior to implementation of the SCH reform and it had a CCR of 0.32, then its billed charges would be multiplied by factors of 0.83, 0.66, and 0.49 in the first 3 years respectively so that each year the payment ratio declined by an equal amount (in this case by a factor of 0.17). In each year, the aggregate level of allowed amounts produced using the CCR approach at each SCH would be compared with the aggregate level of DRG-allowed amounts at the SCH, and the SCH would be paid the greater of the two aggregate amounts. This 4-year transition would allow hospitals to have a phased transition to the cost-based rates. Although this option would provide a multi-year period for SCHs to transition to the cost-based rates, we did not choose this option because it would still result in large reductions for some SCHs over a relatively short period.

A second option we considered was to have a transition based on a reduction of 15 percentage points per year in the allowed amounts for each SCH. Under this option, the CCR portion in this approach would be modified. During the transition period, the billed charges on each claim at an SCH would be multiplied by a factor so that the ratio decreased by 15 percentage points each year from the level in the previous year. For example, if the SCH were receiving 100 percent of its billed charges prior to SCH reform and it had a CCR of 0.32, then its billed charges would be multiplied by factors of 0.85, 0.70, 0.55, and 0.40 in the first 4 years respectively, so that each year the ratio declined by 15 percentage points. In the fifth year, the ratio would be set at 0.32, the hospital's CCR. (The actual number of years of transition will depend on the hospital's CCR and could be more or less than the 4 years in this example as the ratio will never be less than the CCR.) In each year, the aggregate level of allowed amounts produced using the CCR approach at each SCH would be compared with the aggregate level of DRG-allowed amounts at the SCH and the SCH would be paid the greater of the two aggregate amounts. This type of transition ensures that there is a manageable reduction in the level of payments each year for each hospital. We selected this option for SCHs not in the TRICARE network.

We were concerned there might be access problems at some hospitals with a high concentration of TRICARE patients if their payments were decreased significantly. In particular, we were concerned that some hospitals might leave the TRICARE network if payments were reduced too quickly. This was a particular concern because 24 of the 25 SCHs with the highest levels of TRICARE-allowed amounts in the first 6 months of Calendar Year 2010 were in the TRICARE network. Thus, the SCHs that would face the largest reductions in the level of TRICARE-allowed amounts from TRICARE's SCH reform would be network hospitals.

An option we considered, and the one we adopt in this rule, is to provide a 10 percent-per-year reduction in the allowed amounts for SCHs in the TRICARE network. This option would modify the CCR portion of the approach using the most recent adjudicated Medicare cost report. During the transition period, the billed charges on each claim at an SCH in the TRICARE network would be multiplied by a factor so that the ratio decreased by 10 percentage points each year from a FY 2012 base year (in contrast to 15 percentage points for non-network hospitals). For example, if a TRICARE network SCH had allowed amounts equal to 92 percent of its billed charges prior to SCH reform, and it had a CCR of 0.35, then its billed charges would be multiplied by factors of 0.82, 0.72, 0.62, 0.52, and 0.42 in the first 5 years, respectively, to calculate the allowed amounts. Under this approach, each year the ratio for network SCHs would decline by ten percentage points. In the sixth year, the ratio would be set at 0.35, the hospital's CCR (assuming that the hospital's CCR had remained at 0.35). In each year, the aggregate level of allowed amounts produced using the CCR approach at each SCH would be compared with the aggregate level of DRG-allowed amounts at the SCH, and the SCH would be paid the greater of the two aggregate amounts. This type of transition ensures that there is a manageable reduction in the level of payments each year for each hospital. We selected this option for SCHs in the TRICARE network. The impact assessment of implementation of SCH during the first year appears in Table 1. The estimates of reduction are based on TRICARE claims data.

Table 1 shows the impact of revised SCH inpatient reimbursement during FY 2013. Table 2 shows projected TRICARE reduction in reimbursement for the top 20 SCHs. Table 3 shows the full amount of the reduction without phase-in and transitional payments.

Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 199 is amended as follows:

On April 6, 2007, the Coast Guard published an NPRM for the events that are listed within this regulation and made them available for public comment (72 FR 17062). No comments were received. The Coast Guard followed this NPRM with an Final Rule on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 54832).

On June 14, 2013, in an effort to provide the public with the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding these same events, the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled Regattas and Marine Parades in the COTP Lake Michigan Zone in the Federal Register (78 FR 35783). We did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

This rule is intended to ensure safety of life and property on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. This rule will establish restrictions upon, and control the movement of, vessels in a specified area of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.

For each of these events, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the likely combination of a race involving a large number of competitors, spectators, and transiting water craft in a congested area of water presents significant safety risks. These risks include collisions among competitor and spectator vessels, injury to swimmers from transiting water craft, capsizing, and drowning.

The authority for this regulation is 33 U.S.C. 1233.

The Coast Guard received no comments on this rule. No changes have been made.

This rule will remove 1 event and amend 5 annual marine events listed in 33 CFR Part 100. This rule will amend 33 CFR Part 100 by making updates within the following sections:

33 CFR 100.903, Harborfest Dragon Boat Race; South Haven, MI. The Harborfest Dragon Boat Race is an annual event involving an estimated 250 participants maneuvering self-propelled vessels within a portion of the Black River in South Haven, MI. The organizer for this event submitted a 2013 application showing a date that is different from what is currently codified within the CFR. For that reason the Coast Guard will amend 33 CFR 100.903 to reflect an updated effective date for this event of Saturday and Sunday of the 4th weekend of June, from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.

33 CFR 100.904; Celebrate Americafest; Green Bay, WI. This event will be removed by this rule because it has been codified within 33 CFR 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Coast Guard determined from past experience that a safety zone best addresses the safety hazards associated with this event.

33 CFR 100.905; Door County Triathlon; Door County, WI. The swim portion of the Door County Triathlon is expected to involve thousands of participants in the waters of Horseshoe Bay—a portion of Green Bay. As this event is currently listed, the effective date expired on July 23 and 24, 2011. The Coast Guard has spoken with the event organizer and confirmed that this Triathlon is expected to reoccur annually. For that reason, the Coast Guard will amend 33 CFR 100.905 to reflect an updated effective date for this event. Likewise, this rule will amend the location and size of the regulated area for this event. This rule will shrink the size of the regulated area by 1000 yards and move the regulated area into the waters of Horseshoe Bay, some 600 yards southeast of its currently-listed location.

33 CFR 100.906; Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show; Grand Haven, MI. This rule will amend the effective date of this event so that, should the date change, the Coast Guard will give notice to the public of the effective date by Notice of Enforcement.

33 CFR 100.907; Milwaukee River Challenge; Milwaukee, WI. The Milwaukee River Challenge is a rowing competition involving 40′ and 60′ rowing shells. The event is expected to involve hundreds of participants and spectators. The event organizer for the Milwaukee River Challenge informed the Coast Guard that the Milwaukee River Challenge Race will take place at an earlier time than is currently listed in 33 CFR 100.907. The event organizer further informed the Coast Guard that the rowing shells involved in the Milwaukee River Challenge will race along a portion of the Menomonee River as well as the Milwaukee River. As it is currently listed in 33 CFR 100.907, only the Milwaukee River is named within the “Regulated Area” section. This rule will add the Menomonee River to the “Regulated Area” section, as well as update the effective date to the third Saturday of September; from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

33 CFR 100.909; Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL. The Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race is an annual event involving an estimated 1000 participants maneuvering self-propelled vessels within a portion of the Chicago River in Chicago, IL. The organizer for this event submitted an application showing a date that is different from what is currently codified within the CFR, and is expected to differ in the future. For that reason the Coast Guard will amend 33 CFR 100.909 to reflect an updated effective date for this event of the second Friday and Saturday of July from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan will notify the public of the enforcement of the special local regulations in this rule by all appropriate means. Such means of notification will include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

The events within this rule are expected to occur on certain dates each year. Because these dates are subject to change, the Coast Guard will provide notice of any change in date via a Notice of Enforcement. Additionally, the Coast Guard will also provide notice via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The special local regulations established by this rule will be periodic, of short duration, and are designed to minimize impact on navigable waters. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the regulated areas when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in affected waters within the Lake Michigan Zone on the days in which these special local regulations are enforced.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of these regulated areas, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

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

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

This rule 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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves the establishment of regulated areas and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

The bridge owner, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), is conducting maintenance on the Route 223 swing bridge over Milford Haven Inlet near Hudgins, Virginia. VDOT requested a deviation from the requirement to open on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5 in order to facilitate the rehabilitation work. The deviation period commences at 7 a.m. on October 3, 2013 and goes through 9 p.m. March 31, 2014. During the deviation period, the construction work may require four 24-hour periods where the bridge will be unable to open to navigation. Due to restrictions based on vehicular transportation needs, the 24-hour periods will not be consecutive.

Under the regular operating schedule where the bridge opens on signal, the bridge opens up to ten times every day for commercial fishing vessels and Coast Guard vessels at Station Milford Haven. The vertical clearance of the swing bridge in the closed-to-navigation position is 12 feet at mean high water. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies during any of the four 24-hour closure periods. The southern approach to Gywnn's Island by Sandy Point, VA can be used as an alternate route for vessels able to transit in water depths of two feet. The Coast Guard will use Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least seven days in advance of the changes in operating schedule so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Cape May County Department of Public Works, owner of the drawbridge, has requested on behalf of DelMosports, Inc. a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate the “Tri the Wildwoods Triathlon and 5K” event.

The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.721. On the day of the event, the normal regular operating schedule for May 15 through September 30, the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge (Ocean Drive), at mile 1.0, at Middle Township, NJ is open on signal from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. with a two hours advance notice at all other times. The Grassy Sound Channel Bridge (Ocean Drive) across the Grassy Sound has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 15 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be allowed to remain in the closed to navigation position from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 17, 2013 to accommodate “Tri the Wildwoods Triathlon and 5K” event. The bridge will operate under its normal operating schedule at all other times. Log books indicate there has only been one opening request for this yearly event in 8 years and waterway users are accustom to the temporary closure.

Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway is an alternate route for vessels transiting this area and vessels may pass before and after the closure. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Oregon Department of Transportation has requested that the Lewis and Clark Drawbridge, mile 1.0, remain in the closed position and not open to vessel traffic to facilitate the replacement of the wearing surface of the lift span. The bridge provides a vertical clearance of 25 feet above mean high water when in the closed position. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. Under normal operations this bridge opens on signal with advance notification as required by 33 CFR 117.899(c). This deviation allows the Lewis and Clark Drawbridge across the Lewis and Clark River in Astoria, OR to remain in the closed position and need not open for vessel traffic from 7 a.m. August 20, 2013 through 5 p.m. on August 21, 2013. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.899(c) at all other times. Waterway usage on the Lewis and Clark River is primarily recreational boaters and fishing vessels transiting to and from Astoria Marine Construction Company. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the necessary information for this even in sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The nature of this event has changed and the sponsor would like to include a low flying aerobatic air show over the water and drop grapefruits at a water target as part of a fundraising event. Per Federal Aviation Administration requirements, no vessels are permitted to transit during aerobatic maneuvers. This regulation is necessary to ensure the immediate safety of users of the waterway.

The legal basis for the temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define safety zones.

The safety zone is being issued to ensure the safety of persons and vessels east of North Hero Island for the duration of the air show.

During this air show there will be low flying planes conducting aerobatic maneuvers east of North Hero Island in Lake Champlain within the confines of the safety zone and dropping grapefruits onto water targets as part of a fundraising event. This safety zone will be in effect from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on August 11 and August 12, 2013.

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

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

The economic effect of this rule will not be significant for the following reasons: The safety zone will be of limited duration. Vessels may be authorized to transit the zone with permission of the Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England. The aerobatic box is a rectangle 2 nautical miles by 1/2 nautical mile, parallel to the shoreline, with its western edge 500 feet offshore. Vessels transiting to or from the shoreline may transit around the safety zone with limited delay. Additionally, maritime advisories will be broadcasted during the duration of the enforcement period.

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

(1) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone. However, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to the geographic location in which this rule takes place and advance notifications will be made to the local community by marine information broadcasts. Additionally, mariners may transit around the safety zone to gain access to or from the shoreline without a significant delay.

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

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

This rule 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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On November 19, 2012, Pennsylvania submitted formal revisions to its SIP. One SIP revision consists of updated MVEBs for NO X and VOCs for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The other SIP revision updates the point source inventory for NO X and VOCs.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA established the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), Lancaster County was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. On September 20, 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a SIP revision which consisted of a maintenance plan, a 2002 base year inventory and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. On November 8, 2006, Pennsylvania DEP supplemented their September 20, 2006 submittal. On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889), EPA approved the SIP revision as well as the redesignation request made by Pennsylvania DEP and Lancaster County was redesignated as a maintenance area.

The currently SIP-approved MVEBs for the Lancaster Area were developed using the Highway Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2). On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), EPA published a notice of availability for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010) model for use in developing MVEBs for SIPs and for conducting transportation conformity analyses. EPA commenced a two year grace period after which time the MOVES2010 model would have to be used for transportation conformity purposes. The two year grace period was scheduled to end on March 2, 2012. On February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11394), EPA published a final rule extending the grace period for one more year to March 2, 2013 to ensure adequate time for affected parties to have the capacity to use the MOVES model to develop or update the applicable MVEBs in SIPs and to conduct conformity analyses. On September 8, 2010, EPA released MOVES2010a, which is a minor update to MOVES2010 and which is used by Pennsylvania in this SIP revision.

This MVEBs SIP revision updates the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs for the years 2009 (interim year) and 2018 (maintenance year) that were produced using the MOVES2010a model. The point source inventory SIP revision updates the point source inventory for NO X and VOCs. A comparison between the previous point source inventory and the updated point source inventory is provided in Table 1. The previously approved MVEBs were produced using the Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2). A summary of the updated MOVES-based MVEBs and previously approved MOBILE6.2-based MVEBs for the years 2009 and 2018 is provided in Table 2. Even though there is an emissions increase in the MOVES-based MVEBs, the increase is not due to an increase in emissions from mobile sources. The increase is due to the fact that the MOVES model provides more accurate emissions estimates than MOBILE6.2, rather than growth that had not been anticipated in the maintenance plan. Also, part of the update of the MVEBs is the addition of a two tons per day (tpd) safety margin for both NO X and VOCs. The MVEBs that will be utilized for transportation conformity purposes and include the safety margins are presented in Table 3. These safety margins were added because emissions in the interim (2009) and maintenance (2018) years are significantly less than the attainment year emissions, which is the year that the Lancaster Maintenance Area attained the standard. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical Support Documents (TSDs) prepared in support of this proposed approval and are available on line at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0058.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision from November 19, 2012 to update the SIP-approved MVEBs for the Lancaster County Maintenance Area to reflect the use of the MOVES model. EPA is also approving the update to the SIP-approved point source inventory. This SIP revision allows the Lancaster County Maintenance Area to continue to be in attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The updated MVEBs meet the adequacy requirements set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi), and have been correctly calculated to reflect the use of the MOVES model. Upon final approval, these updated MVEBs will be both adequate and SIP-approved for purposes of transportation conformity. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 7, 2013 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 9, 2013. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 7, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

This action pertaining to the update of the SIP-approved MVEBs and point source inventory for the Lancaster Maintenance Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

We proposed on February 5, 2013, to disapprove Arizona's SIP to implement the regional haze program under 40 CFR 51.309. 1 Specifically, we proposed to disapprove in part a December 24, 2008, submittal by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in which the State resubmitted materials previously submitted on December 23, 2003, and December 30, 2004 (collectively “Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP”). 2 These SIP submittals were intended to address the regional haze requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 for four of Arizona's mandatory Class I areas. Our proposed rule includes additional information about these requirements and Arizona's SIP submittals.

During the 30-day comment period on our proposal, we received comments from:

• Eric Massey, Director Air Quality, ADEQ; and

• David Nimkin, Gloria Smith, Barbara Warren, Donna House and Dan Randolph, on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Arizona Chapter), Dine' Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance (collectively, the “Conservation Organizations”).

Comment 1: ADEQ commented that its December 24, 2008, “re-submittal” letter was not a revision to Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP because it did not include new information and was not subject to a formal public comment period. ADEQ further asserted that its 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals were deemed complete by operation of law six months after submission, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), and that EPA should have acted on these submittals within 18 months pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2).

Response 1: As an initial matter, ADEQ's comment appears to have no relevance to the substance of EPA's proposed action. Regardless of whether ADEQ's December 24, 2008, re-submittal letter was a SIP revision or merely a request that EPA act upon ADEQ's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals, the fact remains that Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP does not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and is therefore not approvable. We also note that ADEQ's comment appears to contradict the statements made in the December 24, 2008, re-submittal letter itself. 3 The re-submittal letter states that:

The absence of these provisions cannot be remedied by the fact that Arizona's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals were deemed “complete” by operation of law. Section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to “promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet before the Administrator is required to act on such submission under this subsection.”  6 Pursuant to this requirement, EPA has promulgated “completeness criteria,” consisting of administrative materials and technical support elements that must be included with all SIP submittals. 7 These criteria do not include the substantive provisions that a given SIP must include to comply with the minimum requirements of the CAA. Rather, such substantive requirements are set out in the CAA itself and in EPA's implementing regulations. Thus, the fact that the 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals were deemed “complete” with respect to the minimum criteria required under CAA section 110(k)(1)(A) does not mean that the submittals were complete in the sense that they contained the provisions necessary to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. On the contrary, ADEQ acknowledged in its re-submittal letter that Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP “does not include provisions under § 309(d)(4) or § 309(g).”  8

Finally, ADEQ's assertion that EPA should have acted on the State's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals within 18 months of December 30, 2004, is not persuasive. The D.C. Circuit's decision in Center for Energy & Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“CEED”), which invalidated 40 CFR 51.309's stationary source requirements, was issued on February 18, 2005. In response to this decision, EPA proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.309 on August 1, 2005. 9 Among other things, EPA proposed to allow states to submit or resubmit 309 SIPs at a later date in order to provide time for States to revisit the SO 2 milestones and backstop emission trading program. EPA further explained that:

Comment 2: ADEQ commented that EPA had no authority to adopt a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in its December 5, 2012, final rule that established BART for three power plants in Arizona. 12 ADEQ argued that EPA's January 15, 2009, finding of failure to submit (“Finding”), 13 which provided the basis for EPA's FIP authority, was invalid because Arizona submitted 309 SIPs in 2003 and 2004, both of which were deemed complete by operation of law. Finally, ADEQ asserted that if EPA did have FIP authority, then it would extend only to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g), not to the requirement for BART.

Response 2: As an initial matter, this comment is not germane in any way to the present rulemaking, in which EPA is finalizing its partial disapproval of Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP for failure to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Rather, ADEQ's comment appears to be a collateral challenge to EPA's Finding and other rulemakings EPA has conducted involving regional haze and BART requirements in Arizona. We note that ADEQ's objection to EPA's Finding comes nearly three years after the statutory deadline for challenging that action has passed. Under the CAA, any party seeking judicial review of EPA's Finding was required to file a petition for review within 60 days of publication of the Finding in the Federal Register , or by no later than March 16, 2009. No party, including Arizona, filed such a petition. Therefore, ADEQ's claim that EPA's Finding was invalid and that EPA did not have FIP authority to promulgate its December 5, 2012, final rule is time-barred.

We also disagree with the substance of ADEQ's comment. As ADEQ noted in its comment, EPA's authority to issue a FIP arises from one of three triggering events: (1) A finding that a state has failed to make a required SIP submittal; (2) a finding that a SIP submittal does not satisfy the minimum criteria of CAA section 110(k)(1)(A); or (3) the disapproval, in whole or in part, of a SIP submittal. 14 Contrary to ADEQ's assertion, the fact that Arizona's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals were deemed “complete” by operation of law has no bearing on EPA's Finding, which was premised on the fact that Arizona failed to submit SIP provisions to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g). The State's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals could not have addressed 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g) because the former requirement was modified in response to the D.C. Circuit's 2005 decision in CEED, while the latter requirement did not even exist until EPA finalized our revisions to 40 CFR 51.309 in 2006. 15 ADEQ acknowledged this fact in its December 24, 2008, re-submittal letter, which plainly stated that Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP addresses neither 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) nor 51.309(g). 16

Additionally, we disagree with ADEQ's contention that EPA's FIP authority is somehow limited to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g). Section 309 is an alternative route to compliance with the regional haze rule that can only be implemented at the election of the state. The regional haze rule clearly explains that if a state chooses to fulfill its regional haze obligation under 40 CFR 51.309, but fails to submit the SIP provisions necessary to satisfy that obligation, then the state remains subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 17 Thus, when Arizona failed to submit SIP provisions addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g) by the December 17, 2007, deadline, Arizona remained subject to the general requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. In other words, the regulatory gap left by Arizona's failure to submit a comprehensive 309 SIP was a duty to submit a 308 SIP. As a result, EPA's Finding triggered a duty on behalf of EPA to issue a FIP that satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308, which include the requirement to establish BART for certain stationary sources.

Finally, even if EPA's FIP authority were somehow limited to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g), those provisions are far more expansive than ADEQ suggests. Section 51.309(d)(4) governs emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from stationary sources that cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. In particular, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of quantitative SO 2 emission “milestones” that provide for emissions reductions, which “must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART pursuant to § 51.308(e)(2).” In addition, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi) requires 309 SIPs to “contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for stationary source PM and NO X emissions.” Finally, 40 CFR 51.309(g) includes the requirements for Arizona's eight other Class I Areas and mandates, among other things, the establishment of reasonable progress goals and implementation of “any additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress,” consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)-(4). In short, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g) encompass three critical elements of the regional haze program: Reasonable progress, long-term strategies, and BART (or “better-than-BART” alternatives) for NO X , PM, and SO 2 . Therefore, even if EPA's FIP authority were somehow limited to fulfilling the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g), that authority nevertheless extends to each of these critical elements, which include BART.

Comment 3: ADEQ commented that EPA's delay in acting on Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP and the Agency's promulgation of a FIP in a separate rulemaking did not give Arizona an adequate chance to revise its SIP to address the identified deficiencies.

Response 3: Arizona has been on notice since August 1, 2005, when EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 51.309 in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision in CEED, of the deficiencies associated with the State's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals. There, EPA publicly stated that “EPA cannot approve implementation plans under section 51.309 as meeting reasonable progress until the plans contain valid provisions for addressing stationary sources.”  18 We also explained that “[s]tates opting for § 51.309 will be required to resubmit SIPs some time after [the invalidated portions of the 309 regulations] have been rectified . . . .”  19 EPA's October 2006 final rule amending 40 CFR 51.309 also made clear that Arizona would have to revise and resubmit its 309 SIP to address 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(g) by December 17, 2007. 20 Arizona's December 24, 2008, re-submittal letter, which stated “[t]his plan submittal does not include provisions under § 309(d)(4) or § 309(g),”  21 illustrates that Arizona was well aware of these requirements and the deficiencies in its 309 SIP.

EPA found on January 15, 2009, that Arizona failed to re-submit the required provisions, again stating explicitly and on public record:

Comment 4: The Conservation Organizations expressed their support for EPA's determination that Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP fails to comply with the requirements of the regional haze rule. They provided a summary of the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and a history of Arizona's regional haze SIP submissions since EPA's 2006 revisions to the section 309 requirements, concluding that “EPA's final rule should disapprove Arizona's 309 SIP for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 309(d)(4).” They further asserted that “EPA's final rule should find that Arizona declined to participate in the alternative Section 309 [Western Backstop Trading Program] and instead has chosen to address SO 2 , NO X , and PM reductions through the BART process and long-term strategy requirements found in Section 308.”

Response 4: We agree with this comment and acknowledge the Conservation Organizations' support for this rulemaking.

For the reasons set out in our proposed rule and in this final rulemaking, we are finalizing our partial disapproval of Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP. In particular, we are disapproving all portions of Arizona's 2003 and 2004 SIP submittals, except those portions that have already been approved and those portions pertaining to Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI).

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, EPA's final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of CAA sections 171-193 or a revision that is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) starts a sanctions clock. Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP was not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, today's action will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179(a).

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after disapproving a SIP in whole or in part, unless EPA first approves a SIP correcting the deficiencies. As explained above, due to our previous Finding that Arizona failed to submit a complete regional haze SIP, EPA is already subject to a FIP duty under section 110(c)(1) with respect to the regional haze requirements for Arizona. Moreover, we are also subject to a set of court-ordered deadlines by which we must approve a SIP and/or promulgate a FIP that collectively meet the regional haze requirements for Arizona. 24 Thus, we do not construe today's partial disapproval of Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP as creating any new FIP obligation. However, as noted in our proposed rulemaking, Arizona is appealing the district court's entry and modification of the consent decree that set the deadlines for EPA action on regional haze plans for Arizona. 25 If Arizona's challenge ultimately results in any changes to the scope of EPA's existing FIP duty with respect to regional haze in Arizona, then today's action will trigger a two-year FIP clock for any additional regional haze requirements that are not subject to the previous FIP clock.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals or SIP disapprovals under section 110 of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the disapproval of SIP revisions does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action disapproves certain SIP elements and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain SIP revisions implementing and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves certain SIP revisions.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain SIP revisions under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 7, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

DoD published a proposed rule, DFARS case 2011-D039, in the Federal Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29, 2011, to address requirements for safeguarding unclassified information. The scope of this final rule is limited to only the modifications contained within the proposed rule to DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information. This text was separated from the proposed rule, and is being published separately as a final rule, because the changes in this DFARS clause deal with the release of information on fundamental research projects and not safeguarding. This rule was initiated to implement guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) in a memorandum on Fundamental Research dated May 24, 2010, and a memorandum on Contracted Fundamental Research dated June 26, 2008. The memoranda provided additional clarifying guidance to ensure that DoD does not restrict disclosure of the results of fundamental research, as defined by the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, unless such research efforts are classified for reasons of national security or otherwise restricted by applicable Federal statutes, regulations, or executive orders.

The comment period originally closed on August 29th, 2011, and was extended to December 16th, 2011. DoD received comments on the proposed rule from forty-nine respondents; however, only fourteen (14) of the respondents addressed the changes contained within this final rule.

DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:

1. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(a)(1) is no longer being modified and will remain essentially intact.

2. Paragraph 252.204-7000(a)(3) is revised to no longer require a certification by the contracting component. Instead, the fundamental research determination must be made in writing.

3. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b) is revised to modify the time period that requests for approval must be submitted to the contracting officer from 45 days to 10 business days. It also clarifies that the paragraph refers to the exception provided at subparagraph (a)(1).

Comment: Two respondents stated that the negotiation and determination of whether fundamental research is being performed should occur at the proposal stage whenever universities will be performing research services.

Response: Consistent with the text added at 252.204-7000(a)(3), fundamental research projects should be scoped and negotiated during the proposal stage and the written determination of fundamental research should be prepared prior to the research performer commencing work on the project.

Comment: Two respondents requested that definitions be provided for the following terms: “prime contractor,” “research performer,” and “contracting component.” An additional respondent requested that DoD define the terms “project” and “certified.”

Response: The term “contracting component” was used in the proposed rule but was changed to “contracting activity,” which is defined in the FAR and supplemented within the DFARS. The meanings of the other terms in this rule do not vary from their usage in the commercial marketplace; therefore, explicit definitions will not be provided.

Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule does not allow for all circumstances in which contractors may be required to release unclassified information, e.g., compelled discovery during litigation. The respondent recommended that paragraph 252.204-7000(a)(1) of the DFARS text remain unchanged to allow the contracting officer to approve requests for disclosure in instances not outlined in the proposed rule.

Response: DoD has revised the final rule to keep the current text at DFARS 252.204-7000(a)(1) intact.

Comment: Two respondents expressed concern with the requirement that the contractor submit its request for approval at least 45 days before the proposed date for release of unclassified information. One respondent stated that there is no requirement in the NISPOM requiring the contractor to submit a request for information release to the contracting officer at least 45 days before the proposed date of the release. The respondent requested that DoD ensure that the requirements in the rule do not impact existing documents in an unintended way. Another respondent stated that when proposals are being prepared for new efforts, there is often insufficient time to provide a 45-day advance notice.

Response: The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information in connection with classified contracts. The scope of DFARS 252.204-7000 is limited to the release of unclassified information; therefore, the requirements of this rule and NISPOM are mutually exclusive. However, due to advances in communication technology, since the clause was first added to the DFARS, DoD has revised the final rule to reduce the requirement to 10 business days, to alleviate burden on contractors.

Comment: One respondent stated that a presumption should exist that all funded research projects are fundamental research and that the information may be published without prior restriction unless an affirmative determination has been made by DoD that it is not fundamental research.

Response: The fundamental research presumption may be appropriate in instances when the research is funded through use of grants. However, the research performed in support of DoD contracts often falls in the categories of applied or advanced research and has the possibility of producing the seed for future defense technologies and therefore needs restrictions in place.

Comment: Several respondents stated that the prime contractor should not be involved in the determination and/or certification that a project is fundamental research. Some stated that the determination should be limited to the research performer and the contracting component. Others stated that the prime contractor should be required to submit any subcontractor's request for fundamental research certification to the contracting officer.

Response: There was no certification requirement in the proposed rule. The final rule allows for the contracting activity to coordinate with both the prime contractor and the research performer when making a fundamental research determination. It is not appropriate for subcontractors to circumvent the prime contractor, because there is no privity of contract between the Government and the subcontractor.

Comment: One respondent stated that the rule contradicts with NSDD 189, which requires that agencies determine classification requirements prior to award, while the proposed rule allows the determination to be made after award.

Response: The purpose of DFARS 252.204-7000 is to provide direction to contractors regarding when it is permissible for them to release unclassified information relating to DoD contracts. Instructions to the contracting activity concerning when classification determinations should be made fall under the National Industrial Security Program (NISP), which is outside of the scope of the clause and this rule.

Comment: One respondent stated that further clarification was needed to expressly permit release of unclassified information without the contracting officer's approval for reporting obligations included elsewhere in the contract and/or required by applicable law.

Response: DoD has revised the proposed rule to revert to the current DFARS text at 252.204-7000(a)(1) which contemplates all circumstances in which contractors may be required to release unclassified information. However, the contracting officer must be involved in the decision to release information pertaining to DoD contracts because of the potential security risks.

Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule should provide guidance on whether the restriction of unclassified information “to anyone outside the contractor's organization” applies to outsourced IT.

Response: Contractors should have controls in place that prevent the release of information by their subcontractors or outsourced IT through either flow-down of the clause at DFARS 252.204-7000 or obtaining nondisclosure agreements.

Comment: One respondent stated that a post-contract DoD-wide point of contact should be contained in the rule to account for instances when the need for the release of information occurs after contract completion and the contracting officer is not reachable.

Response: The scope of DFARS 252.204-7000 is limited to the permissibility of the release of unclassified information relating to DoD contracts. In circumstances where the contracting officer cannot be reached, the applicable contracting activity should be contacted.

Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule should make clear that it is not authorized for use in university-based Budget Activity 1 or 2 contracts, absent exceptional circumstances justifying extremely rare exceptions made only with the approval of high-level component management. Another respondent stated that the proposed clause should not be adopted without emphasizing the inapplicability of the rule to contracts for fundamental research.

Response: The prescription requires that the clause be used when the contractor will have access to or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. The contracting officer has the discretion to not include the clause in any solicitation or contract when a judgment has been reached that the information may be freely released to the public.

Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule does not give any indication of its applicability to grants and/or cooperative agreements.

Response: The DFARS applies to purchases and contracts by DoD contracting activities. The Department of Defense Grant and Agreement Regulatory System (DODGARS) is the system of regulatory policies and procedures for the award and administration of grants and cooperative agreements.

Comment: One respondent stated that the scope of the fundamental research exemption is not clear since it is not explicit in the DoD information definition.

Response: According to the NSDD 189, “fundamental research” means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.” The exemption will apply when the nature of the research has been determined to meet this definition.

Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule contradicts USD(AT&L) memorandum dated May 24, 2010, stating that “Provisions shall be made to accommodate such subcontracts for fundamental research and to ensure DoD restrictions on the prime contract do not flow down to the performer(s) of such research,” by requiring the contractor to include a similar requirement in each subcontract. The respondent recommended that the paragraph be revised to state that the similar requirement is not required in subcontracts if any of the exemptions apply.

Response: In circumstances where a project is determined to be fundamental research in accordance with the final rule, the prime contractor will not be restricted on the release of information resulting from or arising during that project. Therefore, the determination will flow down to subcontractors for portions of the work determined to be fundamental research.

Comment: One respondent stated that significant outreach is needed to DoD firms to ensure they understand what constitutes fundamental research and that specific contracting terms are available that should be used in those instances.

Response: This rule aims to clarify issues surrounding restrictions currently being placed on the release of unclassified information arising from fundamental research projects. Developing a formal outreach program is outside of the scope of this rule, however the publication of this final rule serves as outreach for rulemaking action.

1. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b)(1) of the proposed rule, which provided exceptions for information required as part of an official Defense Contract Audit Agency audit or DoD Inspector General investigation, or by a Congressional or Federal subpoena, is removed, because the clause did not previously protect the information from release under these circumstances.

2. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b)(3) of the proposed rule is revised to delete “except as otherwise provided by applicable Federal statutes regulations, or Executive orders.” Subparagraph 252.204-7000(d) of the proposed rule is revised to clarify that the paragraph requiring the flowdown of the contract clause should also be included in any subcontracts, in order to provide flowdown to lower tier subcontracts.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

This final rule implements guidance provided by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) in a memorandum dated May 24, 2010, by providing a fundamental research exception to the general rule against disclosure of unclassified information. The subject matter of this final rule was previously included in proposed rule 2011-D039, which was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38089); however, the text was deemed more appropriate for a stand-alone case because this subject matter deals with the release of information and not the safeguarding of information. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared, and no public comments were received. Also, DoD received no comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule.

This final rule applies to all Federal contractors, regardless of size or business ownership, when responding to solicitations or being awarded contracts that include requirements that meet the definition of fundamental research as contained within NSDD 189. The final rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities, because the rule aims to implement policy guidance that is already being followed within DoD regarding restrictions on the disclosure of fundamental research.

The rule does not contain any reporting or recordkeeping requirements and does not require contractors to expend significant cost or effort. There are no known significant alternatives to the rule that would further minimize any economic impact of the rule on small entities.

The rule does not add any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:

19 U.S.C. 2511(b)(4) allows the President to designate least developed countries as eligible countries under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, allowing non-discriminatory treatment of the products of such countries in acquisitions subject to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement. This statutory authority has been delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR selects the countries for such designation from the United Nations (UN) Least Developed Countries List. The USTR consults with other Government agencies on trade policy matters through the Trade Policy Review Group and the Trade Policy Staff Committee. These changes are necessary to reflect the UN General Assembly's current list of least developed countries. Based on changes to the UN Least Developed Countries List and the approval of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, the USTR has revised the list of least developed countries that are designated as eligible countries as follows:

• Changed the name of East Timor to Timor-Leste, reflecting the changed name on the UN list.

• Removed the Maldives, which is no longer a least developed country.

• Added South Sudan, which seceded from Sudan to form an independent state on July 9, 2011, and was formally recognized as a least developed country by the UN in December 2012. Although the United States continues to impose sanctions against Sudan, South Sudan is not subject to sanctions.

This final rule revises the definitions of “designated country” in various DFARS clauses (DFARS 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices; DFARS 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements; and DFARS 252.225-7045, Balance of Payments Program—Construction Material Under Trade Agreements).

“Publication of proposed regulations,” 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it only revises the list of least developed countries that the USTR has designated as eligible for non-discriminatory treatment under the Trade Agreements Act. Addition of South Sudan and removal of Maldives will have no significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the Government or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, it was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:

On January 12, 1968, the Department published a final rule to provide uniform regulations at 49 CFR part 95, relating to the formation and use of advisory committees. See 33 FR 466. Among its major provisions, part 95 set forth regulations governing the use of advisory committees, industry advisory committees, committee meetings, and conflicts of interest. This rule was published pursuant to Executive Order 11007, dated February 26, 1962, which prescribed general rules for the formation and use of advisory committees by departments and agencies of the Government, and authorized Department heads to prescribe additional regulations consistent with the order. Part 95 was amended 4 months after its issuance to allow the Secretary of Transportation, or his or her designee, to waive the requirements relating to the chairmanship of industry committees under certain circumstances. 1

Since the issuance of part 95, the universe surrounding advisory committees has changed in several notable ways. Executive Order 11007 has been superseded. 2 Congress passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2). The FACA formalizes a process for the establishment, operation, oversight, and termination of Federal advisory committees. To further transparency in Government, Congress passed the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976. 3 The Act applies to Federal advisory committees  4 and specifies situations when Federal agencies can close Federal advisory committee meetings to the public. 5 Additionally, DOT issued a departmental order that sets forth internal policies and procedures relating to committee management. 6 Subsequently, Executive Order 12024 delegated to the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) all of the functions vested in the President by FACA. 7 The GSA has issued regulations relating to Federal advisory committees, which were most recently amended in 2001. 8

Notwithstanding these changes, our departmental regulations governing advisory committees have substantively remained unchanged since their early amendment in 1968. 9 As a result, these regulations are now obsolete, unnecessary, duplicative, or inconsistent with FACA's progeny. We are removing part 95 because the current body of law (e.g., FACA, GSA regulations, DOT Order 1120.3B) governing the use and management of Federal advisory committees are sufficient. Revising part 95 would only result in unnecessary duplication that would simply reiterate the provisions found in other law.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may waive the normal notice and comment procedures if the action is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Since part 95 contains obsolete departmental procedures relating to advisory committees, notice and comment is not necessary. For the same reason, the rule can become effective immediately. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The DOT has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. Since this rulemaking removes obsolete regulations relating to departmental procedure and practice, the DOT anticipates that this rulemaking will have no economic impact.

Additionally, this action fulfills the principles of Executive Order 13563, specifically those relating to retrospective analyses of existing rules. This rule is being issued as a result of the reviews of existing regulations that DOT periodically conducts. The DOT is streamlining its regulations by removing a rule that is outmoded and ineffective.

Since notice and comment rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply. However, DOT has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it has no substantive impact on any entities.

This final rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) as it will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $148.1 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the DOT has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect or federalism implications on the States and would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Therefore, consultation with the States is not necessary.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has analyzed this final rule under the PRA and has determined that this rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

The DOT has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

The DOT has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 and believes that the action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The DOT has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The DOT has determined that this is not a significant energy action under that order since 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. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322, the Office of the Secretary amends 49 CFR by removing and reserving part 95.