The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is establishing a new system of records under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) titled, DHS/TSA-023 Workplace Violence Prevention Program System of Records. The system will cover records regarding current and former employees and contractors of TSA and members of the public who have been involved in workplace violence at TSA facilities, or while on or because of their official duty, or who are being or have been assisted or counseled by the TSA Workplace Violence Prevention Program. Records include acts, remarks, or gestures that communicate a threat of harm or otherwise cause concern for the safety of any individual at TSA facilities or while on or because of their official duty. These records may include identifying information, information documenting workplace violence, and actions taken by the Workplace Violence Prevention Program or TSA. The program provides oversight and management of potential or actual incidents of violence in the workplace. It provides assistance to affected individuals, guidance on prevention and response to workplace violence, analyzes data as needed, and provides training.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Individuals may request their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.

The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals in finding such files within the agency.

The Privacy Act allows Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/TSA-023 Workplace Violence Prevention Program System of Records. Some information in DHS/TSA-023 Workplace Violence Prevention Program System of Records relates to official DHS law enforcement. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

A notice of system of records titled, DHS/TSA-023 Workplace Violence Prevention Program System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on January 24, 2008, and published in the November 19, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 69588), and a Recommended Decision issued on November 5, 2009, and published in the November 12, 2009, issue of the Federal Register (74 FR 58216).

This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing held December 9, 2008, in Modesto, California, to consider such amendments to the order. Notice of this hearing was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2008 (73 FR 69588). The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). The notice of hearing contained four proposals submitted by the committee.

The amendments included in this decision would:

1. Redefine the districts into which the production area is divided and reallocate committee membership positions among the districts;

2. Revise committee nomination and selection procedures;

3. Add authority for research and promotion programs; and

4. Revise the committee's meeting and voting procedures.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) also proposed to make any such changes to the order as may be necessary, if any of the proposed changes are adopted, so that all of the order's provisions conform to the effectuated amendments. AMS proposed making a clarifying conforming change to the order language in § 920.20 that cross references § 920.31(l).

Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on November 5, 2009, filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by December 14, 2009. None were filed.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action 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 business subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.

Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers regulated under the order, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000. Small agricultural growers have been defined as those with annual receipts of less than $750,000.

There are approximately 30 handlers of kiwifruit subject to regulation under the order and approximately 220 growers of kiwifruit in the regulated area. Information provided at the hearing indicates that the majority of the handlers would be considered small agricultural service firms. Hearing testimony also suggests that the majority of growers would be considered small entities according to the SBA's definition.

The order regulates the handling of kiwifruit grown in the State of California. Total bearing kiwifruit acreage has declined from a peak of approximately 7,300 acres in 1992-93 to about 4,000 acres in 2007-08. Approximately 24,500 tons of kiwifruit were produced in California during the 2007-08 season—a decline of approximately 27,800 tons compared to the 1992-93 season. According to evidence provided at the hearing, approximately 30 percent of the 2007-08 California kiwifruit crop was shipped to export markets, including Canada, Mexico, Central American, and Asian destinations.

Under the order, outgoing grade, size, pack, and container regulations are established for kiwifruit shipments, and shipping and inventory information is collected. Program activities administered by the committee are designed to support large and small kiwifruit growers and handlers. The 12-member committee is comprised of eleven grower representatives from the production area, as well as a public member. Committee meetings in which regulatory recommendations and other decisions are made are open to the public. All members are able to participate in committee deliberations, and each committee member has an equal vote. Others in attendance at meetings are also allowed to express their views.

Following several discussions within the kiwifruit industry, the committee considered adding authority to conduct research and promotion programs to provide maximum flexibility to the order. An amendment subcommittee was appointed to develop recommendations for this and other possible order revisions. The subcommittee developed a list of proposed amendments to the order, which was then presented to the committee.

The committee met to review and discuss the subcommittee's proposals at its meetings on January 30, 2008, April 22, 2008, and July 9, 2008. At those meetings, the committee voted unanimously to support the four proposed amendments that were forwarded to AMS and subsequently considered at the hearing.

The proposed amendments are intended to provide the committee and the industry with additional flexibility in administering the order and producing and marketing California kiwifruit. Record evidence indicates that the proposals are intended to benefit all growers and handlers under the order, regardless of size.

All grower and handler witnesses supported the proposed amendments at the hearing. Several witnesses commented on the implications of implementing research and promotion programs under the order. In that context, witnesses stated that they expected the benefits to growers and handlers to outweigh any potential costs.

A description of the proposed amendments and their anticipated economic impact on small and large entities is discussed below.

Proposal 1 would amend the order by redefining the districts into which the production area is divided and providing for the allocation of committee membership positions between the districts. Such allocation would be based upon five-year production averages, or upon another basis approved by the Secretary. This proposal would also provide for concurrent terms of office for all committee members, who would be selected biannually.

At the time the order was promulgated, kiwifruit acreage was more widespread throughout California and there were many more growers involved in kiwifruit production. The order originally provided for eight grower districts within the production area, with one membership seat apportioned to each district, and an additional seat reallocated annually to each of the three districts with the highest production in the preceding year. The structure was designed to afford equitable representation for all districts on the committee.

The concentration of planted acreage into two main regions and the decline in the number of growers over time has prompted the committee to evaluate the appropriateness of the current committee structure. The committee believes that consolidating the districts and providing for reallocation of grower seats as proposed would better reflect the current composition of the industry. The revisions would ensure that the interests of all large and small entities are represented appropriately during committee deliberations. Synchronizing all the terms of office to begin and end at the same time would simplify administration of the order and reduce disruptions to committee business. Adoption of the proposed amendment would have no economic impact on growers or handlers of any size.

Proposal 2 would amend the order by specifying that grower nomination meetings be held by June 1 of each nomination year and that mid-term vacancies may be filled by selections made by the Secretary after consideration of recommendations that may be submitted by the committee, unless such selection is deemed unnecessary by the Secretary.

Currently, the order requires that nomination meetings be held by July 15 of each year, but that deadline does not allow for timely processing of the nominations and selections of new members prior to the August 1 beginning of the terms of office. The committee has been conducting nomination meetings earlier than prescribed by the order and proposed this revision to codify what has become normal practice.

Any vacancies that occur under the current order provisions must be filled by repeating the nomination and selection process outlined for new members. Allowing the Secretary to fill vacancies as proposed would streamline the process of filling vacancies and reduce disruption to committee business.

Adoption of this proposal would have no economic impact upon growers or handlers of any size.

Proposal 3 would amend the order by adding authority for the committee to conduct research and promotion projects and to accept voluntary contributions to assist with funding those projects. This proposal would also amend the order by requiring the concurring vote of eight members for any action with respect to research and promotion. Currently, the committee is not authorized to conduct research or promotion programs, and it is not authorized to accept voluntary contributions for any purpose.

Historically, kiwifruit research has been conducted by other industry organizations and funded through private as well as public revenues. Currently, the California Kiwifruit Commission, a State marketing program, is authorized to conduct research and promotion projects for the industry. According to the hearing record, the committee has not identified any specific projects that it wants to conduct at this time, nor does it intend to duplicate the efforts of the State program. However, it would like to add authority to conduct such projects in the event that a need for new projects arises.

Further, the committee proposed adding authority to accept voluntary funds to conduct research and promotion projects to augment the assessment revenues they might budget for such purposes. The order specifies a cap on the rate handlers may be assessed to support the committee's programs and activities. According to witnesses, the current assessment rate is well below the established cap, but supporting research and promotion projects in the future could require more money than what the shrinking industry is likely to collect through assessments. Voluntary contributions could also augment matching funds required from the committee for participation in USDA-sponsored market development programs.

Finally, the committee recommended adding a provision that all actions with respect to research and promotion would require eight concurring committee votes. Witnesses explained that this supermajority approval would ensure that research and promotion projects undertaken by the committee would benefit the industry as a whole.

Adding authority to conduct research and promotion projects would not, of itself, have any economic impact on growers or handlers of any size. If research and promotion projects were implemented under this authority in the future, the assessment rate for handlers would likely increase to cover the cost of those expenditures. The value of any proposed projects, as well as recommendations for increased assessment rates, would be evaluated by the committee and approval would require the concurring vote of eight members. Any increases in cost would be borne proportionately by handlers according to the volume of kiwifruit they ship. Those costs could be offset by voluntary contributions. Witnesses testified that any increases in cost due to implementation of this proposal would be offset by benefits expected to accrue to growers and handlers as improved production and post-harvest handling methods and new market opportunities are developed. Any increased costs would be proportional to a handler's size and would not unduly or disproportionately impact small entities.

Proposal 4 would amend the order by allowing the committee to designate substitute alternates to represent absent members from the same district at meetings if necessary to secure a quorum. Currently, under most circumstances, only a member's respective alternate may represent the member if the member is unable to attend a meeting. For districts with only one member, there is no provision for when both the member and his or her alternate are unavailable for a meeting. In the past, meetings have been cancelled at the last minute because attendance was insufficient to meet quorum requirements.

If implemented, the proposed amendment would allow alternates not otherwise representing absent members to represent other members at committee meetings in order to secure a quorum. This would help ensure that quorum requirements could be met and that committee business could be addressed in a timely manner.

This proposal would further authorize the committee to meet by telephone or other means of communication. Video conference meetings would be considered assembled meetings and votes taken at such meetings would be considered in-person. Votes by telephone or other types of non-assembled meetings would be by roll call.

Witnesses testified that this amendment would provide the committee with greater flexibility in scheduling meetings and would be consistent with current practices in other kiwi industry settings. The use of telephone and other means of communication would allow greater access to committee meetings for members as well as other interested persons. Additionally, administration of the order would be improved as urgent committee business could be addressed in a timely manner.

This amendment is expected to benefit growers and handlers of all sizes by improving committee efficiencies and encouraging greater participation in industry deliberations. The amendment is not expected to result in any significant increased costs to producers or handlers.

Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence indicates that the proposed amendments are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size. Furthermore, the record shows that the costs associated with implementing regulations would be outweighed by the benefits expected to accrue to the California kiwifruit industry.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order and to assist in the production and marketing of California kiwifruit.

Current information collection requirements for part 920 are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB Number 0581-0189—“Generic OMB Fruit Crops.” No changes in these requirements are anticipated as a result of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

The amendments to Marketing Order No. 920 proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The findings and conclusions, rulings, and general findings and determinations included in the Recommended Decision set forth in the November 12, 2009, issue of the Federal Register are hereby approved and adopted.

Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Kiwifruit Grown in California.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions.

It is hereby ordered, that this entire decision be published in the Federal Register .

It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California is approved or favored by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of kiwifruit in the production area.

The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009.

The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are hereby designated to be Kurt Kimmel and Debbie Wray, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail: Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov or Debbie.Wray@ams.usda.gov, respectively.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-612), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon the proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 920 (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California. Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is found that:

(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of kiwifruit grown in the production area (California) in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;

(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of kiwifruit grown in the production area; and

(5) All handling of kiwifruit grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order, is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to be amended as follows:

This rule is issued under the Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order [7 CFR part 1218]. The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 [7 U.S.C. 7411-7425].

This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2009 (74 FR 36955), to amend the Order by increasing the assessment rate on producers and importers who produce or import more than 2,000 pounds of highbush blueberries annually from $12 to $24 per ton. The Council recommended this action to expand its promotional activities and add an advertising component to bridge the potential gap between highbush blueberry demand and future supply. Furthermore, it was the Council's intent to use the additional revenue to strengthen existing consumer, food service, and food manufacturer publicity; to expand its health research; and to develop an educational campaign on good management practices and food safety within the United States as well as internationally.

During the comment period, July 27 through September 25, 2009, the Department of Agriculture received 45 timely comments. These comments may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Nineteen comments were opposed to increasing the assessment rate at this time and one comment supported a smaller increase of $18 per ton.

In summary, the opposing commenters expressed concern with doubling the assessment rate in light of current, poor economic conditions. Several commenters also argued that there is no need to increase the assessment rate because revenue should increase with the anticipated increase in production. Others raised concerns about growers being able to cover their production costs if the assessment rate doubled. Given the comments received, AMS agrees that the proposed rule increasing the assessment rate from $12 to $24 per ton should not be finalized. Therefore, the proposed rule is being withdrawn so as to allow further consideration by the Council. The Council should reconsider whether an increase in the assessment rate is appropriate, and if so, at what rate it should recommend any increase.

The proposed rule to amend the Order by increasing the assessment rate on producers and importers who produce or import more than 2,000 pounds of highbush blueberries annually from $12 to $24 per ton published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2009 (74 FR 36955), is hereby withdrawn.

The Blueberry Promotion, Research and Information Order (Blueberry Order) (7 CFR part 1218) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425). The Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Order (Avocado Order) (7 CFR part 1219) is authorized under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of 2000 (Avocado Act) (7 U.S.C. 7801-7813).

The Blueberry Order became effective on August 16, 2000. The Order is administered by the U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council (Council) with oversight by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The program is funded by assessments on highbush (cultivated) blueberries grown in and imported into the United States. Producers and importers pay the assessment. The producer assessment is remitted by first handlers, and the importer assessment is remitted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs). Producers and importers who produce or import less than 2,000 pounds of highbush blueberries annually are exempt from the program. The purpose of the Order is to finance a coordinated program of promotion, research, and information to maintain and expand the market for fresh and processed cultivated blueberries in the United States and abroad.

The Council is composed of 14 members as follows: 10 producers (one from each of four regions and one from each of the top six producing States); 1 importer; 1 exporter from a foreign production area; 1 handler; and 1 public member. Each member has an alternate. The members and alternates are appointed to the Council by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve a term of 3 years.

The Avocado Order became effective on September 9, 2002. The Order is administered by the Hass Avocado Board (Board) with oversight by USDA. The program is funded by assessments on fresh domestic and imported Hass avocados. Producers and importers pay the assessment. The producer assessment is remitted by first handlers, and the importer assessment is remitted by Customs. Exports of domestic Hass avocados are exempt from assessments. The purpose of the program is to increase consumption of Hass avocados in the United States.

Under the Order, a state association of avocado producers receives 85 percent of the assessments paid by domestic producers, and certified importer associations receive 85 percent of the assessments paid by their members. The State and importer associations use these funds to conduct State-of-origin and country-of-origin promotions, respectively.

The Board is composed of 12 members, 7 who are producers and 5 who are importers. Each member has an alternate. The members and alternates are appointed to the Board by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve a term of 3 years.

AMS published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827), its plan to review certain regulations, including the Blueberry and Avocado Orders under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to review certain regulations which, although they may not meet the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA, warrant review. According to the schedule published in 2006, this notice and request for comments is made for the Blueberry and Avocado Orders.

The purpose of the review is to determine whether the Orders should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the 1996 Act and Avocado Act, respectively) to minimize the impacts on small entities. AMS will consider the following factors: (1) The continued need for the Orders; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the Orders; (3) the complexity of the Orders; (4) the extent to which the Orders overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local regulations; and (5) the length of time since the Orders have been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Orders.

Written comments, views, opinions, and other information regarding the Order's impact on small businesses are invited.

Table of Contents I. Statutory Authority II. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners A. Background B. Current Rulemaking Process i. Residential Clothes Dryers ii. Room Air Conditioners iii. Consent Decree III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE A. Engineering Analysis B. Markups To Determine Product Prices C. Energy Use Characterization D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses E. National Impact Analysis I. Statutory Authority

Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq., established an energy conservation program for major household appliances, which includes residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners. This program authorizes the Department to establish technologically feasible, economically justified energy efficiency standards for certain consumer products that would result in substantial national energy savings, and for which both natural market forces and voluntary labeling programs have been and/or are expected to be ineffective in promoting energy efficiency.

DOE must design each new or amended standard for these products to (1) achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and (2) result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, weighing the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of products subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

Prior to proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE will use to evaluate standards for the product at issue; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for the product; and potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE could consider.

The amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, established prescriptive energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and performance energy conservation standards for room air conditioners, as well as requirements for determining whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c) and (g).)

EPCA, as amended by NAECA, requires gas clothes dryers not to be equipped with constant burning pilots and requires that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (g)(3) and (4)) DOE defines “electric clothes dryer” under EPCA as “a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s).” (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 430.2) Gas clothes dryers have a similar definition, except the heat source is gas. On May 14, 1991, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register (FR) establishing the first set of performance standards for residential clothes dryers; the new standards became effective on May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22250. DOE initiated a second standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers by publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in the Federal Register on November 14, 1994. 59 FR 56423. Pursuant to the priority-setting process outlined in the July 15, 1996, Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996) ( establishing 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A); the “Process Rule”), however, DOE classified the standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers as a low priority for its fiscal year 1998 priority-setting process. As a result, DOE suspended the standards rulemaking activities for them.

NAECA established performance standards for room air conditioners that became effective on January 1, 1990, and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (c)(1) and (2)) DOE defines “room air conditioner” under EPCA as a “consumer product, other than a `packaged terminal air conditioner,' which is powered by a single phase electric current and which is an encased assembly designed as a unit for mounting in a window or through the wall for the purpose of providing delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. It includes a prime source of refrigeration and may include a means for ventilating and heating.” (10 CFR 430.2) On March 4, 1994, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for several products, including room air conditioners. 59 FR 10464. As a result of the Process Rule, DOE suspended activities to finalize standards for room air conditioners. DOE subsequently resumed rulemaking activities related to room air conditioners, and, on September 24, 1997, DOE published a final rule establishing an updated set of performance standards, with an effective date of October 1, 2000. 62 FR 50122.

Under the consolidated Consent Decree in New York v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7807 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, 2005) DOE is required to publish a final rule amending energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners no later than June 30, 2011.

To initiate the current rulemaking to consider energy conservation standards, the Department published on its Web site the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners (the framework document) to explain the issues, analyses, and process that it anticipated using for the development of energy efficiency standards for these products. This document is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/dryer_roomac_framework.pdf. DOE also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework, and inviting written comments concerning the development of standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 72 FR 57254 (October 9, 2007).

The focus of the public meeting, which was held on October 24, 2007, was to discuss the analyses and issues identified in various sections of the framework document. At the meeting, DOE described the different analyses it would conduct, the methods proposed for conducting them, and the relationships among the various analyses. Manufacturers, trade associations, environmental advocates, regulators, and other interested parties attended the meeting. Comments received since publication of the framework document have helped identify issues DOE needs to address in developing a proposed standard and provided information contributing to DOE's proposed resolution of these issues.

For each of the residential clothes dryer and room air conditioner products currently under consideration, DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) markups to determine product price, (3) energy-use characterization, (4) life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses, and (5) national impact analysis (NIA). These analyses resulted in a preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of these analyses. The preliminary TSD is available at the Web address given in the SUMMARY section of this notice. The analyses are described in more detail below.

DOE also conducted several other analyses that either support the five major analyses or are preliminary analyses that will be expanded upon for the NOPR. These analyses include the market and technology assessment, the screening analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis, and the shipments analysis, which contributes to the NIA. In addition to these analyses, DOE has completed preliminary work on the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) and identified the methods to be used for the LCC subgroup analysis, the environmental assessment, the employment analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the utility impact analysis. DOE will expand on these analyses in the NOPR.

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the cost and efficiency of a product DOE is evaluating for amended energy conservation standards. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline products, which is the starting point for analyzing technologies that provide energy efficiency improvements. Baseline product refers to a model or models having features and technologies typically found in products currently offered for sale. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of products in that class and, for products already subject to energy conservation standards, usually is a model that just meets the current standard. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD discusses the engineering analysis.

DOE derives consumer prices for products based on manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups, builder markups, and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE has determined (1) The distribution channels for product sales; (2) the markup associated with each party in the distribution channels; and (3) the existence and magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for more efficient products (incremental markups). DOE calculates both overall baseline and overall incremental markups based on the product markups at each step in the distribution channel. The overall incremental markup relates the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher efficiency models (the incremental cost increase) to the change in the retailer or distributor sales price. Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD discusses the estimation of markups.

The energy use characterization provides estimates of annual energy consumption for the residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners, which DOE uses in the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA. DOE developed energy consumption estimates for all of the product classes analyzed in the engineering analysis, as the basis for its energy use estimates. Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD discusses the energy use characterization.

The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential standards on individual consumers. The LCC is the total consumer expense for a product over the life of the product. The LCC analysis compares the LCCs of products designed to meet possible energy conservation standards with the LCCs of the products likely to be installed in the absence of standards. DOE determines LCCs by considering (1) Total installed cost to the purchaser (which consists of manufacturer selling price, sales taxes, distribution chain markups, and installation cost); (2) the operating expenses of the products (energy use and maintenance); (3) product lifetime; and (4) a discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms. The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the increase in purchase price (including installation cost) of more efficient products through savings in the operating cost of the product. It is the change in total installed cost due to increased efficiency divided by the change in annual operating cost from increased efficiency. Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD discusses the LCC and PBP analyses.

The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from new standards at specific efficiency levels. DOE calculated NES and NPV for each efficiency level as the difference between a base-case forecast (without new standards) and the standards case forecast (with standards). DOE determined national annual energy consumption by multiplying the number of units in use (by vintage) by the average unit energy consumption (also by vintage). Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined over a specified time period. The national NPV is the sum over time of the discounted net savings each year, which consists of the difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed costs. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections, retirement rates (based on estimated product lifetimes), and estimates of changes in shipments and retirement rates in response to changes in product costs due to standards. Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD discusses the NIA.

DOE consulted with interested parties as part of its process for conducting all of the analyses and invites further input from the public on these topics. The preliminary analytical results are subject to revision following review and input from the public. The final rule will contain the final analysis results.

The Department encourages those who wish to participate in the public meeting to obtain the preliminary TSD and to be prepared to discuss its contents. A copy of the preliminary TSD is available at the Web address given in the SUMMARY section of this notice. However, public meeting participants need not limit their comments to the topics identified in the preliminary TSD. The Department is also interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect energy conservation standards for these products or that DOE should address in the NOPR.

Furthermore, the Department welcomes all interested parties, regardless of whether they participate in the public meeting, to submit in writing by April 26, 2010, comments and information on matters addressed in the preliminary TSD and on other matters relevant to consideration of standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners.

The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. A court reporter will be present to record the minutes of the meeting. There shall be no discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market shares, or other commercial matters regulated by United States antitrust laws.

After the public meeting and the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a NOPR. The NOPR will include proposed energy conservation standards for the products covered by this rulemaking, and members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the proposed standards.

FHFA invites comments on this proposed rule, and will consider all comments before adopting final amendments to its regulations. Copies of all comments will be posted on the FHFA Internet Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 414-6924.

Effective July 30, 2008, Division A of HERA, Public Law No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 (2008), created FHFA as an independent agency of the Federal government. HERA transferred the supervisory and oversight responsibilities over the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, Enterprises), the Banks, and the Bank System's Office of Finance, from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) and the FHFB to FHFA. HERA provided for the abolishment of OFHEO and FHFB one year after the date of enactment. FHFA is responsible for ensuring that the Enterprises and the Banks operate in a safe and sound manner, including being capitalized adequately, and that they carry out their public policy missions, including fostering liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets. The Enterprises and the Banks continue to operate under regulations promulgated by OFHEO and FHFB until FHFA issues its own regulations. 1

Each Bank is a cooperative institution that is owned by its members. Any eligible institution (generally a federally insured depository institution or state-regulated insurance company) may become a member of a Bank if it satisfies certain criteria and purchases a specified amount of the Bank's capital stock. See 12 U.S.C. 1424, 1426; 12 CFR part 925. Only members or certain eligible housing associates (such as state housing finance agencies) may obtain access to secured loans, known as advances, or other products provided by a Bank. See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(4), 1430(a), 1430b.

Prior to HERA, CFIs were defined under the Bank Act as depository institutions insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq. ) with average total assets of less than $500 million, as adjusted annually for inflation thereafter. 12 U.S.C. 1422(13) (2008). Section 1211 of HERA raised the $500 million average total assets cap to $1 billion. See section 1211 Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2790 (amending 12 U.S.C. 1422(10)).

By Notice published in the Federal Register in February 2009, FHFA adjusted the $1 billion figure for inflation to $1.011 billion. See 74 FR 7438 (Feb. 17, 2009). As part of FHFA's separate rulemaking addressing Bank membership for community development financial institutions, FHFA included a technical amendment to the definition of “CFI” in existing § 925.1 of the FHFB regulations to implement the average total asset cap increase to $1 billion made by HERA. 2

Under the Bank Act, any member, including a CFI, that wishes to borrow from its Bank must pledge certain types of collateral to secure its repayment obligation on advances, and must otherwise demonstrate to the Bank that it is creditworthy. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(a). Each Bank sets its own lending and collateral policies, which may vary from Bank to Bank and will apply to all borrowing members of that Bank. Prior to HERA, section 10(a)(3) of the Bank Act specified that a member may pledge the following types of collateral to secure an advance: (i) Fully disbursed, whole first mortgages on improved residential property not more than 90 days delinquent, or securities representing a whole interest in such mortgages; (ii) securities issued, insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof; (iii) cash or deposits of a Bank; (iv) other real estate-related collateral acceptable to the Bank, provided the value of such collateral is readily ascertainable and the Bank can perfect its security interest in the collateral; and (v) for institutions that qualify as CFIs, secured loans for small business or agriculture, or securities representing a whole interest in such secured loans. 3 See 12 U.S.C. 1430(a)(3). Section 1211 of HERA amended section 10(a)(3)(E) to broaden the collateral that may be pledged by CFI members to include secured loans for community development activities. 4

In addition, prior to HERA, section 10(a)(2) of the Bank Act provided that a Bank could make a long-term advance to a member only for the purposes of providing funds to the member for residential housing finance; it also allowed long term advances to CFI members for purposes of funding small business, small farm, and small agri-business lending. 5 See 12 U.S.C. 1430(a)(2). Section 1211 of HERA amended section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Bank Act so that a Bank also may make long term advances to a CFI member to fund community development activities. 6

Section 1211 of HERA also amended section 10(a)(6) of the Bank Act to provide that the term “community development activities” shall have the meaning given such term by regulation by the Director of FHFA. See id. ( amending 12 U.S.C. 1430(a)(6)). The legislative history of HERA does not further illuminate Congress' intent in making these amendments.

Section 1201 of HERA requires the Director, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the following differences between the Banks and the Enterprises: Cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. 7 The Director also may consider any other differences that are deemed appropriate. In preparing this proposed regulation, the FHFA considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors. The FHFA requests comments from the public about whether differences related to these factors should result in any revisions to the proposal.

The FHFA is proposing definitions for community development, community development loans, and other terms as needed, to implement the new CFI collateral provisions adopted by HERA. The FHFA also proposes to amend the regulations addressing the purposes for which a Bank may make long term advances to include community development loans made by CFI members. The proposed rule also would make a change to the advances regulation which would incorporate a long standing policy previously established by the FHFB that any form of secured lending by a Bank to a member of the Bank System is deemed to be an advance and extend that policy to cover secured lending transactions by a Bank to affiliates of members. Finally, the FHFA is proposing to transfer the existing advances regulations from part 950 and the existing new business activity regulation from part 980 of the FHFB's regulations (12 CFR parts 950 and 980) to new parts 1266 and 1272 of the FHFA's regulations, incorporate certain definitions that had been in part 900 of the FHFB rules into new proposed parts 1266 and 1272, and make additional conforming changes to these rules. 8

Under the proposed transfer of the current part 950 advances regulation, the definition section of that regulation would be redesignated as § 1266.1. FHFA is proposing to amend redesignated § 1266.1 to make changes necessary to implement the CFI collateral amendments adopted by HERA, as described above, and to make other conforming changes.

First, FHFA is proposing to define “community development” with reference to the definition for this term adopted by CFI members' primary federal regulators under Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. 9 The definitions were jointly adopted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and are substantively the same. 10 Under the definitions, “community development” encompasses affordable housing, community services targeted to low- and moderate-income individuals, economic development activities through financing of businesses and farms that meet size eligibility standards of the Small Business Administration's Development Company or Small Business Investment Company Programs or have gross annual revenues of $1 million or less, and activities that revitalize or stabilize low- or moderate- income geographies, designated disaster areas, or certain designated, distressed, or underserved non-metropolitan middle-income geographies. 11 Basing the new definition on the current CRA regulations should strengthen the CFI members' ability to use advances in financing the development needs of their local communities as embodied by their CRA obligations.

In turn, FHFA is proposing to define “community development loan” as a loan that has community development as its primary purpose. FHFA recognizes, however, that many loans that are extended to support community development, as that term is defined in the referenced CRA regulations, would already be acceptable collateral for advances under existing FHFA regulations. For example, all loans for affordable housing likely would qualify as eligible security for advances as mortgages or other real estate-related collateral. Because FHFA does not intend the proposed definition to call into question the validity of any security pledged (or to be pledged) under the categories of eligible collateral already identified in the advances regulation for all members, the proposed definition of “community development loan” would exclude categories of eligible collateral now identified in § 950.7(a) of the advances rule  12 from its scope. FHFA recognizes that there would also likely be overlap between “community development loans” and other types of collateral that may be pledged exclusively by CFI members. For example, loans that promote economic development by financing small businesses and farms could already qualify for use by CFI members as advances collateral, as small business loans, small farm loans, or small agri-business loans, as currently defined in the advances regulation. However, these types of collateral including the new community development loans can be pledged only by CFI members, so there appears to be no need to carve out the existing categories of eligible CFI collateral from the proposed definition.

The proposed definition of “community development loan” also specifically excludes consumer loans or credit extended to one or more individuals for household, family, or other personal expenditures. This exclusion is intended to make clear that FHFA is not proposing that consumer loans, such as auto loans, even if made to low- or moderate-income individuals or households, would be considered eligible collateral for advances as a “community development loan.” This proposed provision, however, would not change the status of any loan that qualifies as eligible collateral for advances under existing categories of collateral in the current regulations. For example, the proposed language would not affect the status of home equity loans as other real estate-related collateral eligible to secure advances.

Although many community development loans would be eligible collateral for CFI members under pre-HERA statutory and regulatory provisions, FHFA believes that the proposed definitions of “community development” and “community development loan” would allow for at least marginal expansion in the types of loans that CFI members can pledge as security for advances. For example, the proposed definition could allow CFI members to accept certain types of loans that are meant to revitalize or stabilize certain designated, distressed, or underserved non-metropolitan middle income geographies that would qualify as community development loans under the referenced definitions adopted by federal banking regulators but would not necessarily qualify as collateral under existing advances regulations. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether, and how, these proposed definitions might be altered to better help CFI members fund community development activities while continuing to assure that advances be secured only by high quality collateral.

FHFA is also proposing a new definition of “residential housing finance assets” that would incorporate community development loans and thereby implement the HERA amendment that allows CFIs to rely on long-term advances to fund this type of loan. To avoid confusion with the term “community development loan”, FHFA is also proposing to remove the reference to “community lending” from the current definition and incorporate each element of “community lending”, as defined in § 900.2, 13 into the definition of “residential housing finance assets”. Thus, the proposed new definition of “residential housing finance assets” would specifically refer to “loans or investments providing financing for economic development projects for targeted beneficiaries” and for CFI members, to the extent not already included, “small business loans, small farm loans, small agri-business loans, or community development loans.” Other than adding “community development loans”, the proposed changes are editorial in nature and would not alter the scope of the current definition for “residential housing finance assets”.

FHFA is also proposing to add to newly designated § 1266.1 definitions for “Bank Act”, “advances”, “Bank”, and “targeted beneficiaries”. These definitions are contained in § 900.1 or § 900.2 of the FHFB rules, and FHFA is proposing to carry them over to newly designated part 1266 without substantive change. 14

Current § 950.3 implements section 10(a)(2) of the Bank Act by providing that a Bank shall make long-term advances only for the purpose of enabling a member to purchase or fund new or existing residential housing finance assets, which include, for CFI members, small business loans, small farm loans, and small agri-business loans. This provision would be redesignated as § 1266.3 by the proposed rule. Because, as already noted, FHFA is proposing to add specific references to small business loans, small farm loans, small agri-business loans, and community development loans in the definition of “residential housing finance as sets”, FHFA also is proposing to remove references to such CFI-specific collateral from the redesignated § 1266.3(a) as redundant. No other changes are being proposed for this section.

Current § 950.7(b) implements section 10(a)(3)(E) of the Bank Act, which sets forth additional eligible collateral that can be pledged by CFI members only to secure advances from a Bank. Section 950.7 would be redesignated as § 1266.7 under this proposed rule. The FHFA is proposing to implement the HERA provision allowing CFI members to pledge loans for community development activities as collateral for advances by adding “community development loans” to the list of CFI-specific collateral set forth in the redesignated § 1266.7(b)(1). No other changes are being proposed to this provision.

A Bank's acceptance of “community development loans” would need to meet the same requirements as its acceptance of other types of CFI collateral. Thus, community development loans pledged by CFI members to secure advances would need to be fully secured by collateral other than real estate. In addition, any eligible community development loan would have to have a readily ascertainable value, be able to be reliably discounted to account for liquidation or other risk, and be able to be liquidated in due course, and the Bank would have to be able to perfect a security interest in such loan. A Bank's acceptance of specific types of “community development loans” to secure an advance would also be subject to its first meeting the requirements of the new business activities rule, currently set forth in 12 CFR part 980. 15 The proposed changes would also allow a Bank to accept as collateral for advances, a security representing a whole interest in community development loans, subject to the Bank's first fulfilling any obligations under the new business activities rule. A Bank's acceptance of “community development loans” would also be subject to all relevant FHFA policies and guidance that apply to acceptance of other types of collateral to secure advances, such as the guidance on anti-predatory lending policies contained in Advisory Bulletin 2005-AB-08.

FHFA is also proposing to amend newly designated § 1266.2 of the advances regulation to incorporate a long-standing position that any secured lending by a Bank to members is deemed an advance subject to all requirements related to advances. This position was first taken by the FHFB in 1995 by resolution; this resolution has not been rescinded and is still in effect. See Fin. Brd. Res. No. 95-13 (Aug. 9, 1995). The purpose of the resolution was to prevent Banks from using other forms of secured lending to members, such as reverse repurchase transactions, to avoid specific requirements and obligations associated with making advances to members.

This remains a concern, even if, because of amendments to the Bank Act, the specific issue which motivated the original resolution is no longer relevant. FHFA is proposing to codify the position taken in the old FHFB resolution as new § 1266.2(e) to make clear that it intends this restriction to continue to apply and that it does not believe that members, or the Banks, should be able to avoid requirements applied to advances, including stock purchase requirements, by allowing members to borrow from the Banks using other forms of secured transactions. Further, to assure that the proposed provision cannot be circumvented by a Bank extending secured credit to an affiliate of a member, the proposed provision also would be applied to any affiliate of a member. 16 Members and their affiliates are able to enter transactions with each other to provide funding and liquidity, and thereby, can extend the benefits of borrowing from the Bank among affiliated parties. In fact, the advances regulation has long recognized that affiliates of a member can play a role in helping the member secure financing from a Bank, and has allowed affiliates to pledge collateral for advances subject to certain specific requirements. See § 950.7(g). Given this link, FHFA believes that it is appropriate to close what could be another means for members to avoid regulatory requirements associated with advances by incorporating into the regulations a provision providing that, because secured extensions of credit are deemed to be advances, they are not to be made to member affiliates.

FHFA is proposing to transfer the new business activities rule from part 980 of the FHFB regulations to part 1272 of FHFA regulations. FHFA is also proposing to make conforming changes to part 1272, including adding definitions for “Bank” and “FHFA”. The proposed definitions are the same as those being proposed in part 1266. No substantive changes to the new business activities regulation are being proposed.

The information collection contained in the Data Reporting Manual, entitled “Advances to Housing Associates,” has been assigned control number 2590-0001 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed amendments to the advances regulations do not substantively or materially modify the approved information collection. The proposed changes to the new business activity regulation do not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the OMB for review.

The proposed amendments apply only to the Banks, which do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore in accordance with section 605(b) of the RFA, FHFA certifies this proposed regulation, if promulgated as a final regulation, will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Housing Finance Agency proposes to amend chapters IX and XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2009-0201; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD 2009-0224, dated October 20, 2009, AD 2009-0193, dated August 27, 2009, and AD 2009-0193R1, dated December 1, 2009 (referred to after this as “the MCAIs”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. These MCAIs state:

• TAE has identified the gearbox as the primary source of vibrations causing the failures of the propeller control valves.

• EASA revised AD 2008-0145 with AD 2008-0145R1, which reduced the applicability to cover only TAE 125-01 engines, superseded AD 2008-0145R1 with AD 2009-0193, and revised that AD with AD 2009-0193R1. AD 2009-0193R1 requires, for TAE 125-01 engines, initial and repetitive replacements of the PPRV, inspection of the electrical connectors of the PPRV and replacement of the connectors if damaged, installation of a vibration isolator between the engine gearbox and the propeller's constant speed unit, replacement of the aluminum pipe that connects the PPRV to the constant speed unit with a flexible hose, and replacement of the de-icing nozzle bracket with a redesigned bracket.

• EASA also issued AD 2009-0151 and superseded it with AD 2009-0224, which requires for TAE 125-02-99 engines, initial and repetitive replacements of the PPRV, and installation of a vibration isolator between the engine gearbox and the propeller's constant speed unit.

Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. TM TAE 125-1007 P1, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2009, SB No. TM TAE 125-1009 P1, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2009, SB No. TM TAE 125-0018, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2008, and SB No. TM TAE 125-0020, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

We have reviewed the MCAIs and, in general, agree with their substance. But we have found it necessary to not reference the second paragraph of the unsafe condition from EASA AD 2009-0224. That sentence stated that the problem has only manifested itself on those Thielert engines installed on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42 aircraft. The affected engines which require a PPRV could be used on other make and model airplanes in the future.

We also did not incorporate the February 28, 2010 compliance date which is in EASA AD 2009-0193R1, or the January 31, 2010 compliance date which is in EASA AD 2009-0224.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive replacements of the PPRV and installation of a vibration isolator to the gearbox assembly.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 300 TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines installed in Diamond Aircraft Industries Model DA 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.25 work-hour per engine to replace a PPRV and install a vibration isolator to the gearbox assembly. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $275 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $88,875.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2009-0714; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41810). That earlier NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above.

Paragraph (c) of the original NPRM specifies that the AD applies to certain airplanes modified by certain Brazilian supplemental type certificates (STCs) and that are equipped with the affected part. Brazilian STCs do not apply to U.S. airplanes. The applicability of this supplemental NPRM would therefore not depend on accomplishment of the Brazilian STC. We have removed the reference to the Brazilian STCs from the applicability of this supplemental NPRM. We have coordinated this issue with Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil.

We have reviewed EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 02, dated February 17, 2009. The original NPRM cited EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2008, as the appropriate source of service information for replacing the landing gear electronic unit (LGEU) with a new one having a new part number. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 02, dated February 17, 2009, revises the effectivity but adds no new actions. We have revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) (paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3) of the original NPRM) and Note 1 of this supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 02. We have also added EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2008, to Table 1 of this supplemental NPRM to provide credit for actions done in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2008.

We have considered the following comments received on the original NPRM.

American Eagle Airlines requests that we revise the original NPRM to also allow replacing the LGEU, in accordance with Section 32-32-01 Part II of the EMBRAER Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), as an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of the original NPRM. Paragraph (g) of the original NPRM would have required replacing LGEU having P/N 355-022-002 with P/N 355-002-003, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2008; or 145LEG-32-0032, Revision 02, dated February 17, 2009; as applicable.

We disagree with the request. Section 32-32-01 of the EMBRAER AMM does not include all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0120, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2008; or 145LEG-32-0032, Revision 02, dated February 17, 2009. Neither the FAA nor the Brazilian authorities approve the AMM. However, operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this supplemental NPRM. No change has been made to this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

The Airline Pilots Association requests that we revise the compliance times to 12 months for replacing all LGEUs. The original NPRM specifies replacing LGEUs having P/N 355-022-002 having serial numbers (S/Ns) 1000 through 1999 with new LGEUs having P/N 355-022-003 within 12 months after the effective date of the AD. It also specifies replacing LGEUs having P/N 355-022-002 having other serial numbers with new LGEUs having P/N 355-022-003 within 30 months after the effective date of this AD. The commenter provides no justification for this request.

We disagree with the request to revise the compliance times. All LGEUs identified in this AD have the potential to fail. However, according to the manufacturer's data, LGEUs having P/N 1000 through 1999 have certain internal components that could fail sooner than the internal components of the other LGEUs. For this reason LGEUs having P/N 1000 through 1999 should be removed and replaced sooner than the other LGEUs. By replacing LGEUs having P/N 1000 through 1999 sooner as a result of a shorter compliance time, the same level of safety for all operators of the affected airplane is maintained. No change has been made to this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed AD.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Since issuance of the original NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 711 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $120,870, or $170 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2010-0158; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-006-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light 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 concerning this proposed AD.

We received a report that on a Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 airplane the wires to the MOV and spark gap were swapped. The swapped wires were discovered during an inspection following a lightning strike. The spark gap has a higher current carrying capability than the MOV and is designed to carry direct currents caused by a lightning strike. In the event of a lightning strike, the potential exists to overload the MOV and allow an electrical spike to pass through to the essential bus.

This condition, if not corrected, could allow electrical energy to continue to the essential bus and disable equipment that receives power from the essential bus. The disabled equipment could include the autopilot, anti-skid system, hydraulic indicator, spoiler system, pilot primary flight display, audio panel, or the #1 air data computer. This failure could lead to a significant increase in pilot workload during adverse operating conditions.

We have reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 24-3995, issued September 2009. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the essential bus lightning strike protection for proper installation of MOV and spark gap wiring. The service information also describes procedures for rework as necessary to achieve the required lightning strike/surge protection.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the essential bus lightning strike protection for proper installation of MOV and spark gap wiring. This proposed AD would also require you to rework the wiring as necessary to achieve the required lightning strike/surge protection.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 170 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection (includes any necessary follow-on action):

Warranty credit may be given to the extent specified in Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 24-3995, issued September 2009.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-0129; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-245-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0235, dated October 29, 2009 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The modification of the electrical power distribution system includes, depending on the configuration, adding a new circuit breaker and new relay to the AC/DC ESS BUS circuit, and adding a diode between a certain relay and terminal block. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-24-1120, Revision 03, dated July 10, 2009. 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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 633 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,200 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,867,630, or $6,110 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2010-0023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2010-0023” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2010-0023” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

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

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Tiffany Duffy, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

On July 3, 2010 the Wicomico Church will sponsor a fireworks display on the Great Wicomico River approximately 1/2 mile down river of Rouge Point Light, at position 37°50′31″ N/076°19′42″ W (NAD 1983). The fireworks are launched on land and the safety zone is intended to keep mariners away from any fall out that may enter in the water. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, access to the Great Wicomico River within 420 feet of the fireworks display will be temporarily restricted.

The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, Virginia. This safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within 420 feet of the fireworks display located at position 37°50′31″ N/076°19′42″ W (NAD 1983). This regulated area will be established in the interest of public safety during the Wicomico Community Fireworks event and will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2010, with a rain date of July 4, 2010. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

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

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this proposed regulation restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration and maritime advisories will be issued allowing the mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. However, this rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Great Wicomico River from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2010.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Lieutenant Tiffany Duffy, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads at (757) 668-5580. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction and neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. A preliminary environmental analysis check list supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . This rule involves establishing a safety zone around a fireworks display. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency, ICAPCD, and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The seven rules listed below constitute ICAPCD's Regulation VIII—Fugitive Dust Rules.

On July 21, 2006, we found that the State's submittal for ICAPCD Regulation VIII, Rules 800-806, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. A completeness determination by EPA means that the submission provides sufficient information for EPA to evaluate it for action under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and (4).

There are no previous versions of Rules 800-806 in the SIP.

Exposure to ambient PM 10 at levels above the NAAQS is harmful to human health and the environment, with effects including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to develop a SIP that meets basic requirements for a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). If a state has areas that are designated “nonattainment” for a NAAQS, then section 172, and in the case of the PM 10 -specific sections 188 and 189, require the state to submit regulations that control emissions of PM 10 and its precursors, as appropriate, to bring the area into attainment of the NAAQS.

The Imperial Valley is designated nonattainment for PM 10. Accordingly, ICAPCD is developing regulations intended to attain the NAAQS. ICAPCD's Regulation VIII consists of seven inter-related rules designed to limit emissions of PM 10 from anthropogenic fugitive dust sources in Imperial County. Each rule is described briefly below.

Rule 800, General Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter, provides definitions, a compliance schedule, exemptions and other requirements generally applicable to all seven rules. It also describes specific exemptions and requirements for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Border Patrol (BP). Appendices A and B describe methods for determining compliance with opacity and surface stabilization requirements in Rules 801 through 805.

Rule 801, Construction and Earthmoving Activities, establishes a 20% opacity limit and control requirements for construction and earthmoving activities. Affected sources must submit a dust control plan and comply with other portions of Regulation VIII regarding bulk materials, carry-out and track-out, and paved and unpaved roads. The rule exempts construction of single family homes and waives the 20% opacity limit in winds over 25 mph under certain conditions.

Rule 802, Bulk Materials, establishes a 20% opacity limit and control requirements for bulk material handling, storage, transport and hauling.

Rule 803, Carry-Out and Track-Out, establishes control requirements for removing carry-out and track-out material transported onto paved roads from unpaved roads and areas.

Rule 804, Open Areas, establishes a 20% opacity limit and requires land owners to prevent vehicular trespass and to stabilize disturbed soil on certain open areas. Agricultural operations are exempt from the rule.

Rule 805, Paved and Unpaved Roads, establishes a 20% opacity limit and control requirements for unpaved haul and access roads, canal roads, and traffic areas that meet certain size or traffic thresholds. Single family residences and agricultural operations are exempt from the rule.

Rule 806, Conservation Management Practices, requires agricultural operation sites greater than 40 acres to implement at least one conservation management practice (CMP) for each of these categories: land preparation and cultivation, harvest activities, unpaved roads and unpaved traffic areas.

EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more specific information about these rules. The submission from ICAPCD also provides additional details and includes the Regulation VIII rules.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing SIP requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for certain emissions sources in moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas, and Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for such sources in serious PM 10 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).

We used the following guidance and policy documents to evaluate enforceability and to interpret RACM or BACM requirements:

We invite you to submit comments about these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum value in helping us develop the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each comment addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations on http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Docket Manager listed in this notice.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact Amy Borgstrom, Docket Manager, Corporation for National and Community Service, aborgstrom@cns.gov, TDD 606-3472.

On April 21, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (Serve America Act). The Serve America Act reauthorizes and expands national service programs administered by the Corporation by amending the NCSA and DVSA. The Corporation engages four million Americans in service each year, including approximately 75,000 AmeriCorps members, 492,000 Senior Corps Volunteers, 1.1 million Learn and Serve America students, and 2.2 million additional community volunteers mobilized and managed through agency programs.

Section 6101 of the Serve America Act authorizes the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation to issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments required under the Act. To fulfill that responsibility, on September 10, 2009, the Corporation issued an interim final rule to implement time-sensitive changes to the Corporation's AmeriCorps State and National, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America program regulations. (74 FR 46495). The changes resulting from the interim final rule were required as a result of amendments to the NCSA and DVSA by the Serve America Act, which took effect for most purposes on October 1, 2009.

In that rule, we stated our intention to engage in full notice and comment rulemaking to implement those amendments mandated by the Serve America Act that did not require immediate regulatory action. This rule primarily proposes amendments and additions to existing regulations regarding the National Service Trust, including limitations on education award receipt, the available uses of education awards, eligibility to receive an education award, eligibility to transfer an education award, and the amount of an education award. This proposed rule also addresses the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve in an AmeriCorps State and National program. The proposed rule allows flexibility in managing match requirements for Senior Companion and Foster Grandparent programs facing hardship. Finally, this rule makes several technical corrections inadvertently omitted from the interim final rule, including an amendment to the provision on pre-approval of Subtitle C formula programs, amendments to the AmeriCorps State and National selection criteria, and an amendment to include a reference to the Department of Education's new Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. An overview of specific changes for each program is set out below.

The National Service Trust is an account in the U.S. Treasury authorized to disburse education awards to national service participants. Prior to passage of the Serve America Act, the Corporation was authorized to disburse one type of education award from the National Service Trust—a national service education award, also known as a Segal AmeriCorps education award, available upon successful completion of a term of service in an approved AmeriCorps position. An “approved AmeriCorps position” is one of the positions described in Sec. 123 of the Act, including a position in AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and the newly authorized ServeAmerica Fellowship program.

The Serve America Act authorizes two new types of education awards: (1) A Silver Scholar education award of $1,000, available upon successful completion of a term of service in an approved Silver Scholar position; and (2) a Summer of Service education award of between $500 and $750, available upon successful completion of a term of service in an approved Summer of Service position. To align with the amended statute, this proposed rule amends § 2525.20 by adding three separate definitions for “AmeriCorps education award,” “Silver Scholar education award,” and “Summer of Service education award.”

Each of these awards is based upon successful completion of a term of service in an approved position. For a position of any type to be considered “approved,” the Corporation must have agreed to provide a corresponding education award upon successful completion of a term of service in that position. This proposed rule amends § 2510.20 by adding definitions to clarify that in order for a Summer of Service or Silver Scholar position to be considered approved, it must be approved by the Corporation for the receipt of a Silver Scholar or Summer of Service education award, respectively.

There are different service requirements for each type of education award. A term of service in an approved AmeriCorps position is for at least 1,700 hours during a period of not more than one year, with options for part-time or reduced part-time terms of service, as defined in § 2522.220, for AmeriCorps State and National members. A term of service in an approved Silver Scholar position must be for at least 350 hours during a period of one year. A term of service in an approved Summer of Service position must be for at least 100 hours “during the summer months.” To clarify that what constitutes a term of service will vary depending upon the program, this proposed rule amends the definition of “term of service” in § 2525.20 to align with the NCSA by providing separate descriptions for terms of service in approved AmeriCorps, Silver Scholar, and Summer of Service positions.

As stated above, a Summer of Service education award will generally be $500. However, the NCSA authorizes the Corporation to establish a Summer of Service award of $750 for “economically disadvantaged youth.” The Corporation proposes in this rule to define “economically disadvantaged youth” for the purposes of the larger Summer of Service education award as a child who is eligible for a free lunch and breakfast under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This proposed rule amends § 2525.20 to add this definition.

The Serve America Act created two new types of education awards: Silver Scholar education awards and Summer of Service education awards, for $1000 and $500 respectively, available upon successful completion of an approved Silver Scholar or Summer of Service position. This proposed rule amends § 2526.10 to include individuals who successfully complete terms of service in approved Silver Scholar or Summer of positions as eligible to receive an education award from the National Service Trust.

Previously, the list of eligibility criteria to receive an education award in § 2526.10 has reflected the eligibility criteria to serve in AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, and AmeriCorps VISTA, including age and education criteria that would necessarily exclude individuals in Summer of Service positions, which are available for “youth who will be enrolled in any of grades 6 through 12 at the end of the summer” (42 U.S.C. 12563(c)(8)). To align with the amended statute, this proposed rule amends § 2526.10 to defer to the eligibility criteria of individual programs for program-specific criteria.

Under the proposed rule, for an individual to be eligible to receive an education award, the organization responsible for the individual's supervision must certify: (1) That the individual met the applicable eligibility requirements for the approved national service position, approved Silver Scholar position, or approved Summer of Service position, as appropriate; (2) that the individual successfully completed the term of service in the AmeriCorps, Silver Scholar, or Summer of Service program; and (3) that the individual is a citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident alien of the United States.