58830 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

either the Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate; or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de 

l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent). 

Optional Terminating Action 

(g) Modification of all specified fastener 

holes in the rear spar of the wing terminates 

the initial and repetitive inspections required 

by paragraphs (c) and (e) of this AD, if the 

modification is done in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1089, 

Revision 02, dated November 6, 1998; or 

Revision 03, dated February 9, 2001. If done 

before the airplane accumulates 12,000 total 

flight cycles, the modification also terminates 

the actions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this AD. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(h) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions must be done in accordance with 

the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this 

AD.

TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Service bulletin Revision level Date 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1004 ................................................... 1 ..................................................... September 24, 1992. 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1004 ................................................... 2 ..................................................... June 14, 1993. 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1060 ................................................... Original .......................................... December 8, 1992. 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1060 ................................................... 2 ..................................................... December 16, 1994.

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1088 ................................................... 04 ................................................... August 6, 2001. 

(1) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1088, 

Revision 04, dated August 6, 2001, is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 5, 2004. 

(2) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1004, 

Revision 2, dated June 14, 1993; and Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1060, Revision 2, 

dated December 16, 1994; was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of June 30, 2000 (65 FR 34069, 

May 26, 2000). 

(3) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1060, 

dated December 8, 1992, was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of February 14, 1994 (59 FR 1903, 

January 13, 1994). 

(4) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1004, 

Revision 1, dated September 24, 1992, was 

approved previously by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of June 11, 1993 (58 FR 

27923, May 12, 1993). 

(5) Copies may be obtained from Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go 

to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in French airworthiness directive 2001–

249(B), dated June 27, 2001.

Effective Date 

(i) This amendment becomes effective on 

November 5, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 21, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21816 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 914 

[Docket No. IN–154–FOR] 

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving an amendment to 

the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana 

program) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Indiana proposed 

revisions to and additions of rules 

pertaining to blasting schedules and 

blaster certification. Indiana submitted 

the amendment at its own initiative and 

intends to revise its program to improve 

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division. Telephone: (317) 226–6700. Email: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Indiana 

program effective July 29, 1982. You can 

find background information on the 

Indiana program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the July 26, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 32071). You can also 

find later actions concerning the Indiana 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated June 2, 2004 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1727), 

Indiana sent us an amendment to its 

program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.). Indiana sent the amendment at 

its own initiative. Indiana proposed 

revisions to and additions of rules 

pertaining to blasting schedules and 

blaster certification. Indiana intends to 

revise its program to improve 

operational efficiency. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the July 19, 

2004, Federal Register (69 FR 42937). In 

the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

period ended on August 18, 2004. We 

received comments from one Federal 

agency. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58831

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment as described 

below. 

A. Minor Revisions to Indiana’s Rules 

Indiana proposed minor wording, 

editorial, punctuation, grammatical, or 

recodification changes to the following 

previously-approved rules: 312 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 25–6–

31(a)(3) and (b), 25–9–5(c), and 25–9–

8(b)(1) and (2). 

Because these changes are minor, we 

find that they will not make Indiana’s 

rules less effective than the 

corresponding Federal regulations. 

B. 312 IAC 25–6–31 Surface Mining; 

Explosives; Publication of Blasting 

Schedule 

Indiana proposed to remove the last 

sentence in subsection (c) that requires 

revised blasting schedules to be 

approved by the director of the 

Department of Natural Resources before 

publication and distribution. The 

deleted sentence duplicates a provision 

that is also found at 312 IAC 25–6–32(a). 

The Indiana regulation at 312 IAC 25–

6–32(a) requires the permittee to submit 

the blasting schedule required by 312 

IAC 25–6–31 to the director of the 

Department of Natural Resources for 

approval 60 days before publishing the 

schedule.

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 816.64(a) requires operators to 

conduct blasting operations at times 

approved by the regulatory authority 

and announced in the blasting schedule. 

Deleting the last sentence in subsection 

(c) will not render Indiana’s rule less 

effective than the counterpart Federal 

regulation. Therefore, we are approving 

the deletion of this sentence. 

C. 312 IAC 25–9–5 Examinations 

Indiana proposed to revise subsection 

(g) by allowing an applicant who fails 

an examination to retake the 

examination two times without 

reapplying and by requiring an 

applicant who fails the examination 

three times to retake the certified blaster 

training course. 

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 850.14 requires regulatory 

authorities to ensure that candidates for 

blaster certification are examined, at a 

minimum, in the topics set forth in 30 

CFR 850.13(b). They do not contain 

provisions that govern examination 

procedures. We find that Indiana’s 

proposed revisions will allow the State 

more flexibility in administering its 

blaster certification examinations and 

will not alter the effectiveness of its 

previously approved provisions. We 

also find that the added requirements 

appear reasonable and are not 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 850.14. Therefore, we are 

approving Indiana’s revisions to 

subsection (g). 

D. 312 IAC 25–9–8 Renewal 

Indiana proposed to add new 

subdivision (b)(3) that requires certified 

blasters to obtain a minimum of 15 

hours of additional training in the topics 

found in 312 IAC 25–9–3 in order to 

renew their blaster certification. Also, 

each certified blaster must provide 

documentation of the training, and the 

training must be approved by the 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Indiana also proposed to add new 

language to subsection (c) to require 

blasters whose certifications are not 

renewed for more than 1 year after 

expiration to retake the examination 

under 312 IAC 25–9–5 and demonstrate 

completion of 15 hours of additional 

training in the previous 36 months. In 

addition, if the certification is not 

renewed for five years after expiration, 

the certification will not be renewable. 

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 850.15 does not contain specific 

requirements concerning renewal of 

blaster certifications. The Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 850.15(a) requires 

regulatory authorities to certify, for a 

fixed period, candidates examined and 

found to be competent and to have the 

necessary experience to accept 

responsibility for blasting operations in 

surface coal mining operations. Also, 

the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

850.15(c) allows regulatory authorities 

to require the periodic reexamination, 

training, or other demonstration of 

continued blaster competency. 

We find that Indiana’s above 

proposed requirements are reasonable 

and are consistent with the counterpart 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 850.15 and 

do not alter the effectiveness of the 

State’s previously approved blaster 

certification provisions. Therefore, we 

are approving them. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On June 10, 2004, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of 

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Indiana program 

(Administrative Record No. IND–

1729A). The United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service responded on July 12, 

2004 (Administrative Record No. IND–

1731), that it noted no significant issues 

related to wildlife conservation.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we 

are required to get a written concurrence 

from EPA for those provisions of the 

program amendment that relate to air or 

water quality standards issued under 

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 

None of the revisions that Indiana 

proposed to make in this amendment 

pertain to air or water quality standards. 

Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur 

on the amendment. 

On June 10, 2004, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 

comments on the amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record No. IND–

1729A). EPA did not respond to our 

request. 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On June 10, 2004, we 

requested comments on Indiana’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1729A), but neither responded to 

our request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Indiana sent us 

on June 2, 2004. 

We approve the rules proposed by 

Indiana with the provision that they be 

fully promulgated in identical form to 

the rules submitted to and reviewed by 

OSM and the public. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 914, which codify decisions 

concerning the Indiana program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

58832 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires 

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Indiana program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 

program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect The Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 3, 2004. 

Charles E. Sandberg, 

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional 

Coordinating Center.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

30 CFR part 914 is amended as set forth 

below:

PART 914—INDIANA

■ 1. The authority citation for part 914 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

■ 2. Section 914.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory 

program amendments.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58833

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

June 2, 2004 .................................. October 1, 2004 ............................. 312 IAC 25–6–31(c); 25–9–5(g); 25–9–8(b)(3) and (c). 

[FR Doc. 04–22018 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP Jacksonville 04–112] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Port Canaveral, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the Atlantic Ocean in the Port Canaveral 

Entrance Channel. The safety zone is 

established for the safety of marine 

vessels transiting a shoaled area within 

the navigation channel as a result of 

Hurricane Frances.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 

a.m. on September 10, 2004, through 10 

a.m. on December 10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket COTP 

Jacksonville 04–112 and are available 

for inspection or copying at Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, 7820 

Arlington Expressway, Suite 400, 

Jacksonville, Florida, 32211, between 8 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant James R. Bigbie at Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office, 

Jacksonville, FL, tel: (904) 232–2640, 

ext. 105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing 

an NPRM, which would incorporate a 

comment period before a final rule 

could be issued, and delaying the rule’s 

effective date are contrary to public 

safety because immediate action is 

necessary to protect the public and 

waters of the United States. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Immediate action is necessary 

to protect the public and waters of the 

United States. The Coast Guard will 

issue a broadcast notice to mariners and 

may place Coast Guard vessels in the 

vicinity of this zone to advise mariners 

of the restriction. 

Background and Purpose 

This rule is needed to protect marine 

craft transiting the Port Canaveral 

Entrance Channel. The safety zone 

includes all those waters shoreward of 

a boundary that originates on the beach 

in position 28°21′24′′ N 080°36′12′′ W; 

and extends east to 28°21′24′′ N 

080°30′18′′ W; then north to 28°24′48′′ N 

080°30′18′′ W; then west to the beach 

where the zone will terminate at 

position 28°24′48′′ N 080°35′00′′ W. 

Anchoring, mooring, or transiting 

within this zone is prohibited, unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Jacksonville, FL. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This regulation 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 cost 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) because these regulations will 

only be in effect for a short period of 

time, and the impacts on routine 

navigation are expected to be minimal. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605 (b) that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities because although the safety 

zone will apply to all vessels transiting 

the port with a draft greater than 22 feet, 

traffic will be allowed to pass through 

the zone with the permission of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port and the 

impact on routine navigation is 

expected to be minimal. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. If 

the rule will affect your small business, 

organization, or government jurisdiction 

and you have questions concerning its 

provisions or options for compliance, 

please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for 

assistance in understanding this rule.

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism.