Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71689 

Assessments are applied uniformly on 

all handlers, and some of the costs may 

be passed on to producers. However, 

decreasing the assessment rate reduces 

the burden on handlers, and may reduce 

the burden on producers. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Florida avocado industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the 

December 14, 2011, meeting was a 

public meeting and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

views on this issue. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic 

OMB Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are anticipated. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large Florida avocado 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

August 31, 2012. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for reasons given in 

the interim rule, we are adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-11-0094- 

0001. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and 

the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 39150, July 2, 2012) will 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915 

Avocados, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

PART 915—AVCOADOS GROWN IN 

SOUTH FLORIDA 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 915, which was 

published at 77 FR 39150 on July 2, 

2012, is adopted as a final rule, without 

change. 

Dated: November 28, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29253 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 710 

RIN 1992–AA36 

Criteria and Procedures for 

Determining Eligibility for Access to 

Classified Matter or Special Nuclear 

Material: Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DOE is amending its 

regulations at 10 CFR part 710, which 

sets forth the policies and procedures 

for resolving questions concerning 

eligibility for DOE access authorization, 

to revise a provision concerning 

designation of an acting official and to 

update the official’s title. Specifically, 

the duties assigned to the Principal 

Deputy for Mission Support Operations 

(formerly, the Deputy Chief for 

Operations), Office of Health, Safety and 

Security, may now be exercised by a 

person or persons designated in writing 

as acting for, or in the temporary 

capacity of, that official. Currently, the 

part 710 regulations state that this 

official’s duties may be exercised by 

another individual only in the official’s 

absence. Today’s final rule also revises 

one title: ‘‘Principal Deputy for Mission 

Support Operations’’ replaces ‘‘Deputy 

Chief for Operations’’. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 4, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christina Pak, Office of the General 

Counsel, GC–52, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; 

Christina.Pak@hq.doe.gov; 202–586– 

4114; Mark R. Pekrul, Office of 

Departmental Personnel Security, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; 

Mark.Pekrul@hq.doe.gov; 202–586– 

3249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

10 CFR part 710 sets forth the policies 

and procedures for resolving questions 

concerning eligibility for DOE access 

authorization. Various DOE officials are 

assigned specific duties in this process. 

Currently, section 710.36 provides that 

each of the named officials, with the 

exception of the Secretary of Energy and 

the Deputy Chief for Operations, Office 

of Health, Safety and Security, may 

designate his or her duties to other DOE 

officials without restriction. 

Since the part 710 rule was last 

amended in 2001, experience has 

demonstrated that conditioning the 

Deputy Chief for Operations’ ability to 

delegate his part 710 functions solely on 

occasions when he is absent from the 

office is unduly restrictive, unnecessary, 

and administratively inefficient. In 

order to enhance the Department’s 

ability to effectively manage the 

Administrative Review process 

prescribed by part 710, the Deputy Chief 

of Operations should be accorded 

greater flexibility in delegating his 

assigned responsibilities under the rule. 

In those cases where duties of the 

Deputy Chief of Operations are 

delegated pursuant to this amendment, 

they will continue to be exercised by a 

DOE employee in a security-related 

Senior Executive Service position 

within the Office of Health, Safety and 

Security, as approved by the Chief 

Health, Safety and Security Officer. In 

addition, DOE would update part 710 to 

reflect organizational changes within 

the Office of Health, Safety and Security 

by replacing ‘‘Deputy Chief for 

Operations’’ wherever it appears in the 

rule with ‘‘Principal Deputy Chief for 

Mission Support Operations’’. 

The regulatory amendments in this 

final rule do not alter substantive rights 

or obligations under current law. 

II. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Today’s regulatory action has been 

determined not to be ‘‘a significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). DOE has also reviewed 

this regulation pursuant to Executive 

Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 

(76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive 

Order 13563 is supplemental to and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
71690 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) 

Propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. DOE believes that 

today’s rule is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

agencies adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs and, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches maximize net benefits. 

B. Administrative Procedure Act 

The regulatory amendments in this 

notice of final rulemaking reflect a 

transfer of function that relates solely to 

internal agency organization, 

management or personnel. As such, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), this rule 

is not subject to the rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, including the 

requirements to provide prior notice 

and an opportunity for public comment 

and a 30-day delay in effective date. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies to ensure that 

the potential impacts of its draft rules 

on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), 

and has made them available on the 

Office of General Counsel’s Web site: 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. As this rule of 

agency organization, management and 

personnel is not subject to the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

an opportunity for public comment 

under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, 

this rule is not subject to the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This final rule does not impose a 

collection of information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has concluded that promulgation 

of this rule falls into a class of actions 

that would not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant impact 

on the human environment, as 

determined by DOE’s regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this 

rule amends existing regulations 

without changing the environmental 

effect of the regulations being amended, 

and, therefore, is covered under the 

Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 

of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR 

part 1021. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. The Executive Order 

also requires agencies to have an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations (65 FR 

13735). DOE has examined today’s rule 

and has determined that it does not 

preempt State law and does 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. No further action 

is required by Executive Order 13132. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71691 

H. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of a Federal regulatory action 

on State, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector. DOE has 

determined that today’s regulatory 

action does not impose a Federal 

mandate on State, local or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guideline issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

L. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). 

M. Approval by the Office of the 

Secretary of Energy 

The Office of the Secretary of Energy 

has approved issuance of this rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 710 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Classified information, 

Government contracts, Government 

employees, Nuclear materials. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

26, 2012. 

Gregory H. Woods, 

General Counsel. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 710 of 

chapter III, title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 710—CRITERIA AND 

PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING 

ELIGIBILTY FOR ACCESS TO 

CLASSIFIED MATTER OR SPECIAL 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 710 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2165, 2201, 5815, 

7101, et seq., 7383h–l; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 

E.O. 10450, 3 CFR 1949–1953 comp., p. 936, 

as amended; E.O. 10865, 3 CFR 1959–1963 

comp., p. 398, as amended, 3 CFR Chap. IV; 

E.O. 13526, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., pp. 298–327 

(or successor orders); E.O. 12968, 3 CFR 1995 

Comp., p. 391. 

§§ 710.9, 710.10, 710.28, 710.29, 710.30, 

710.31, and 710.32 [Amended] 

■ 2. Sections 710.9(e); 710.10(f); 

710.28(c)(2); 710.29(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), 

(g), (h), (i) ; 710.30(b)(2); 710.31(a), (b), 

(d); and 710.32(c) are amended by 

removing the words ‘‘Deputy Chief for 

Operations’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘Principal Deputy Chief for 

Mission Support Operations’’ wherever 

they appear. 

■ 3. Section 710.36 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 710.36 Acting officials. 

Except for the Secretary, the 

responsibilities and authorities 

conferred in this subpart may be 

exercised by persons who have been 

designated in writing as acting for, or in 

the temporary capacity of, the following 

DOE positions: The Local Director of 

Security; the Manager; the Director, 

Office of Personnel Security, DOE 

Headquarters; or the General Counsel. 

The responsibilities and authorities of 

the Principal Deputy Chief for Mission 

Support Operations, Office of Health, 

Safety and Security, may be exercised 

by persons in security-related Senior 

Executive Service positions within the 

Office of Health, Safety and Security 

who have been designated in writing as 

acting for, or in the temporary capacity 

of, the Principal Deputy Chief for 

Mission Support Operations, with the 

approval of the Chief Health, Safety and 

Security Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29234 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FAA–2001–8994; Amdt. No. 21– 

96] 

RIN 2120–AK19 

Type Certification Procedures for 

Changed Products 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a final 

rule published on June 7, 2000 (65 FR 

36244). In that final rule, the FAA 

amended its regulations for the 

certification of changes to typecertificated products. That amendment 

was to enhance safety by applying the 

latest airworthiness standards, to the 

extent practical, for the certification of 

significant design changes of aircraft, 

aircraft engines, and propellers. The 

existing rule requires the applicant 

show that the ‘‘changed product’’ 

complies with applicable standards. 

This action revises that requirement so 

that an applicant is required to show 

compliance only for the change and 

areas affected by the change. The 

intended effect of this action is to make 

the regulation consistent with the FAA’s 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with