The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) authorizes the establishment of the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List). The National List identifies synthetic substances that may be used in organic production and nonsynthetic (natural) substances that are prohibited in organic crop and livestock production. The National List also identifies nonagricultural nonsynthetic, nonagricultural synthetic and nonorganic agricultural substances that may be used in organic handling.

On June 6, 2012, AMS published a final rule (77 FR 33290) addressing multiple exemptions due to sunset from the National List in 2012. Based on the comments received, AMS finalized the amendments to pectin as proposed. In an effort to streamline the sunset dates for over 200 listings for substances on the National List and in consideration of the comments on the proposed rule that supported the proposed changes to pectin, AMS determined that the changes to pectin should be included among the amendments and renewals effective on the earliest sunset date, June 27, 2012, for all substances due to expire in 2012.

After publication of the final rule on June 6, 2012, AMS received new information from industry that some organic processors are currently using amidated, non-organic pectin in their products. The industry indicated that these processors would need time to reformulate these products using either non-amidated, non-organic pectin (if organic pectin is not commercially available), or organic pectin in accordance with the changes codified through the final rule. In response to this information, AMS now understands that some product reformulation is necessary.

The amendments to pectin are effective on June 27, 2012. However, AMS considers a period until October 21, 2012, the original sunset date in 2012 for the pectin listings, to be reasonable and appropriate for the industry to reformulate products in order to ensure that the amendments are effectively and rationally implemented. AMS will conduct outreach to the industry and training for certifying agents as appropriate.

In the following section, we discuss how you can comment on this policy statement and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this policy statement and related documents.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in formulating this policy statement and request for comments by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the notice, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.

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

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov .

To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. When we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov );

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ ; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html .

You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this policy statement. You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this policy statement, including any analysis or technical reports, from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in paragraph (1).

On July 24, 2004, the final rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 44772). The rule established requirements for the issuance of airworthiness certificates for light-sport category aircraft under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.190, Issue of special airworthiness certificates for light-sport category aircraft. Additionally, the rule established procedures for the airworthiness certification of these aircraft in accordance with industry-developed consensus standards. Through the use of consensus standards, the FAA believed that light-sport aircraft (LSA) could be designed, manufactured, and certificated with less FAA oversight than that required for an aircraft manufactured under type and production certification procedures.

Persons presenting an aircraft for airworthiness certification in the light-sport category must provide the FAA with a Statement of Compliance (FAA Form 8130-15) issued by the aircraft's manufacturer indicating that the aircraft meets the provisions of an identified consensus standard that has been accepted by the FAA. Additionally, an aircraft presented for airworthiness certification as SLSA must be inspected to determine that it is in a condition for safe operation. This inspection is accomplished after the aircraft has been completed but before issuance of the airworthiness certificate. The airworthiness certification process also requires a review of the applicant's documentation supplied with the aircraft, which includes the manufacturer's Statement of Compliance.

When originally proposing the rule, the FAA noted that an aircraft presented for airworthiness certification would be inspected by the FAA (or an FAA-designated representative) to determine that it is in a condition for safe operation. The person conducting the inspection would rely upon the manufacturer's Statement of Compliance to assist in determining that the aircraft meets the applicable consensus standards. At the time that the rule was originally proposed, the FAA indicated that it would follow this course of action unless FAA experience with a manufacturer dictated otherwise (67 FR 5378; February 5, 2002). This intent remained unchanged with publication of the final rule.

As the number of aircraft certificated as SLSA rapidly grew, the FAA determined that it was appropriate to conduct an assessment to evaluate the health, state of systems implementation, and compliance of the SLSA industry. From September 2008 through March 2009, the Aircraft Certification Service, Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200) conducted an assessment of SLSA manufacturers by evaluating their systems and processes through on-site evaluation, analysis, and reporting.

The FAA assessment team collected data from SLSA manufacturers (including their extensions and distributors located in the United States) regarding compliance with applicable regulations and standards. After reviewing this data the team recommended enhancements to industry consensus standards for LSA design, manufacturing, continued airworthiness, and maintenance. It also made recommendations for changes to agency internal processes and procedures. A copy of the report can be found in the docket for this notice.

Among the report's conclusions, the FAA found that the majority of the manufacturing facilities evaluated could not fully substantiate that the aircraft for which they had issued Statements of Compliance did, in fact, meet the consensus standards identified in those documents. Therefore, the FAA could not determine that aircraft for which these statements were issued actually met the provisions of the identified consensus standards.

The assessment raised concerns that the SLSA airworthiness certification process, as originally envisioned, does not always achieve its intended purpose. Additionally, the FAA was particularly concerned that SLSA manufacturers have not been sufficiently verifying that their continued airworthiness systems are functioning properly. The FAA has determined that its original policy of reliance on manufacturers' Statements of Compliance for the issuance of airworthiness certificates for SLSA under the provisions of § 21.190 should be reconsidered and that more FAA involvement in the airworthiness certification process for SLSA is warranted.

The FAA notes that a manufacturer's Statement of Compliance presented during the airworthiness certification process for an SLSA must contain a statement that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access to its facilities. The Statement of Compliance, when signed by the aircraft's manufacturer, sets forth the manufacturer's consent to FAA inspection of its facilities and constitutes an assertion that the information contained in the document is true. If, upon examination, the FAA finds that the manufacturer's statements are not accurate, an airworthiness certificate will not be issued for that SLSA until it has been demonstrated that the aircraft meets the identified consensus standards and that the manufacturer is able to comply with the provisions of its Statement of Compliance. SLSA manufacturers signing a Statement of Compliance must ultimately be able to demonstrate their ability to carry out those functions and responsibilities referenced in the statement to the satisfaction of the FAA, and meet all other relevant airworthiness certification requirements.

The current process for airworthiness certification of SLSA is described in FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. The process includes reviewing the applicant's documentation supplied with the aircraft, and verifying it agrees with the identification and description of the aircraft and that it conforms to applicable regulations. The FAA considers an SLSA manufacturer to be a person who not only can attest to meeting the provisions of 14 CFR 21.190, but who can demonstrate these abilities to the satisfaction of the FAA. A person who cannot demonstrate these abilities, or complete the manufacturer's Statement of Compliance would not be considered a manufacturer.

The Statement of Compliance issued for an SLSA in accordance with § 21.190(c), by an SLSA manufacturer, must:

(1) Identify the aircraft by make and model, serial number, class, date of manufacture, and consensus standard used;

(2) State that the aircraft meets the provisions of the identified consensus standard;

(3) State that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design data, using the manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the identified consensus standard;

(4) State that the manufacturer will make available to any interested person the following documents that meet the identified consensus standard:

(i) The aircraft's operating instructions.

(ii) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.

(iii) The aircraft's flight training supplement.

(5) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard;

(6) State that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access to its facilities; and

(7) State that the manufacturer, in accordance with a production acceptance test procedure that meets an applicable consensus standard has—

(i) Ground and flight tested the aircraft;

(ii) Found the aircraft performance acceptable; and

(iii) Determined that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

If a manufacturer cannot demonstrate it can perform the functions specified in the Statement of Compliance for an SLSA or cannot substantiate that those functions have been (or can be, as appropriate) accomplished, the FAA would not consider that person to be the manufacturer of the aircraft intended for airworthiness certification as an SLSA.

Persons providing the FAA with a Statement of Compliance must understand the implications of making the statement. The FAA expects the Statement of Compliance to reflect the manufacturer's understanding of its responsibilities, its capability to execute those responsibilities fully, and a commitment to meeting its obligations in the future.

The FAA is particularly concerned that manufacturers issuing a Statement of Compliance have a system to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues. The manufacturer therefore must be able to monitor and notify operators to correct unsafe conditions for as long as these aircraft are U.S.-registered. The manufacturer also is responsible for issuing corrective actions in accordance with its program to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues and must notify the owners of the affected aircraft of these corrective actions. To ensure the success of the FAA's program for SLSA airworthiness certification, the FAA expects manufacturers to implement a vigorous system to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues.

SLSA manufacturers must be able to provide for the continued operational safety of their aircraft. In order to meet this obligation, which the manufacturer has accepted through its issuance of a Statement of Compliance, it must maintain adequate engineering data and engineering staff to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues affecting the aircraft. This continuing obligation is incurred by both manufacturers who have issued Statements of Compliance for aircraft that are currently certificated as SLSA and manufacturers who have issued Statements of Compliance for aircraft being presented for airworthiness certification.

If, during the FAA's examination of an aircraft, it finds that the aircraft was received from a location outside the United States and only assembled within the United States, the requirements of 14 CFR 21.190(d) must be met for the aircraft to be considered eligible for an airworthiness certificate. This is further clarified in the following section.

Aircraft intended for airworthiness certification as SLSA that have been manufactured outside the United States must be manufactured in country with which the United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning airplanes, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an equivalent airworthiness agreement. The aircraft must also be eligible for an airworthiness certificate, flight authorization, or other similar certification in its country of manufacture. These requirements are set forth in 14 CFR 21.190(d).

During the recent assessment, the FAA identified several anomalies involving aircraft manufactured outside the United States. These included:

• Aircraft manufactured outside the United States that were shipped disassembled to the United States, and assembled by U.S. persons who declared themselves to be the U.S. manufacturers. The FAA found that some aircraft were manufactured in countries with a bilateral agreement and some were not. In both situations, the U.S persons who performed the assembly did not, or could not, carry out the functions to which they attested in their Statements of Compliance for the aircraft.

• Aircraft manufactured in countries without bilateral agreements that were “passed through” a country with which the U.S. has a bilateral agreement. A person in the country with which the U.S. has a bilateral agreement completed the Statement of Compliance before shipping the aircraft to the United States. Again, these persons did not, or could not, carry out the functions to which they attested in their Statements of Compliance for the aircraft.

• Aircraft for which a foreign entity claimed responsibility for certain aspects of the Statement of Compliance and a U.S. person claimed responsibility for the remaining aspects, thereby splitting the manufacturer's responsibility between two distinct persons; and

• Aircraft manufactured in countries with appropriate bilateral agreements by entities that would ship the aircraft to a U.S. distributor. Neither the U.S. distributor nor the foreign entity could maintain a program to correct safety-of-flight issues as attested to in the aircraft's Statement of Compliance.

The assessment clearly identified that aircraft have been supplied to U.S. persons who lack the ability to reasonably attest to the provisions set forth in § 21.190(c). Additionally, U.S. persons have been providing the FAA with a manufacturer's Statement of Compliance identifying themselves as the U.S. manufacturer of an aircraft when the aircraft was in fact produced outside the United States. These situations are not in compliance with the regulations. The FAA did not intend for U.S. persons to receive disassembled LSA from outside the United States, reassemble them within the United States, and characterize themselves as the U.S. manufacturer of an SLSA. As these persons cannot substantiate the information contained in the Statement of Compliance, the FAA does not consider them to be the manufacturers of the aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA will not issue airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category for these aircraft.

Additionally, persons who are unable to make available the documents required by the consensus standards and regulations, do not have the systems in place to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues, or are unable to adequately ensure the continued airworthiness of the aircraft they assemble, would not be able to sign a Statement of Compliance as a manufacturer. The FAA also notes that any person who makes any fraudulent, intentionally false, or misleading statement on the Statement of Compliance could be found to be in violation of 14 CFR 21.2.

The FAA recognizes that it may be possible for a U.S. person to receive portions of a LSA from an entity outside the United States that is acting as a supplier to the U.S. SLSA manufacturer. If this person signs a Statement of Compliance, this person is asserting that the declarations made in the statement are true, and that the person can fulfill the responsibilities set forth in that statement. While some of the U.S. SLSA manufacturers can meet this standard; the FAA has concerns that many cannot substantiate the declarations made in their Statement of Compliance when the majority of the production activity for the aircraft takes place outside the United States.

The provisions of § 21.190(d) were enacted to ensure that a bilateral agreement would exist which would provide the FAA with a means, if necessary, to seek assistance from local civil aviation authorities on any issues affecting the design, production, continued airworthiness, or other matters needing investigation or analysis (69 FR 44806). Any attempts to circumvent the provisions of § 21.190(d) significantly hinder the FAA's ability to address safety issues affecting aircraft certificated as SLSA.

The FAA's actions are intended to ensure compliance with existing regulations and enhance the safety of the existing and future SLSA fleet. The FAA recognizes that these actions may impact existing SLSA manufacturers as well as those persons intending to initiate SLSA production. The FAA has established a Frequently Asked Questions page at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/ to assist current manufacturers in assessing their own capabilities, and ensuring that the Statements of Compliance they issue are accurate.

Aircraft that were issued an airworthiness certificate prior to the effective date of this notice are not affected by this policy statement provided all other applicable requirements are met.

The FAA recognizes that upon implementation of this policy, some entities who have claimed to be SLSA manufacturers may not be able to issue a valid Statement of Compliance, and that other entities may not be willing to assume responsibility for continuing operational safety requirements. Therefore, aircraft within the existing fleets from these manufacturers may no longer be eligible to retain their airworthiness certification as SLSA. These aircraft, however, may be eligible for airworthiness certification as experimental light-sport aircraft (ELSA). The FAA does not intend to accept continued operational safety responsibility for an SLSA whose manufacturer no longer exists or is unable or unwilling to assume that responsibility. The FAA also recognizes that some aircraft that are primarily manufactured outside the United States and assembled in the United States may be found to be ineligible for airworthiness certification as SLSA or ELSA.

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 30, 2006, Gulfstream Aerospace LP (hereafter referred to as “GALP”) applied for a type certificate for their new Model Gulfstream G280 (hereafter referred to as “Model G280”) airplane. The Model G280 is a two-engine jet transport airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 39,600 pounds and an emergency exit arrangement to support a maximum of 19 passengers. Although the Model G280 design includes occupancy provisions for pilot and copilot only (no passengers), GALP requested issuance of these special conditions to support efficient design and certification of passenger cabin interiors through the supplemental type certification process.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, GALP must show that the Model G280 meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-120, thereto, and Amendment 25-122. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, and equivalent safety findings that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model G280 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model G280 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Model G280 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected networks. The proposed architecture and network configuration may be used for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of functions, including:

1. Flight-safety related control, communication, and navigation systems (aircraft control functions);

2. Airline business and administrative support (airline information services), and;

3. Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment services).

The Model G280 integrated network configuration may allow increased connectivity with external network sources and will have more interconnected networks and systems, such as passenger entertainment and information services, than previous GALP airplane models. This may allow the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities and increased risks potentially resulting in unsafe conditions for the airplane and its occupants. This potential exploitation of security vulnerabilities may result in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are being issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane systems and the passenger entertainment services.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model G280. Should GALP apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes.

1. Isolation or Aircraft Electronic System Security Protection from Unauthorized Internal Access. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.

2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3184). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that the proposed actions will enhance safety and that it supports the intent of the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012).

The ALPA requested that an initial inspection of the oxygen hose be performed within 500 flight hours after the effective date of the AD and immediate replacement of any damaged hoses. The commenter also requested that the compliance time for the replacement specified in the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012) of “within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of the AD.” be reduced to “within 2000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.”

We do not agree to add an inspection to the requirements of this AD. We have determined that accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD addresses the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We, also, do not agree with the request for a shorter compliance time. In developing the compliance time, we determined that the compliance time of 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of the AD is appropriate considering the safety implications, the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly inspection of the fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required replacement parts. In addition, the proposed compliance time corresponds with the compliance time of the parallel AD issued by TCCA. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Air Wisconsin requested that the wording in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012) be changed from “modify” to “discard” as Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-017, Revision A, dated June 9, 2011, states in various places to discard the hose.

We partially agree. The wording in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012) incorrectly implied that both the entrance compartment assembly and the flexible oxygen hose could be modified. We have changed paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to clarify that the entrance compartment assembly is “modified” and that the flexible oxygen hose is “replaced with a new flexible oxygen hose.”

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 588 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $108 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 parts. 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $713,244, or $1,213 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 3184, January 23, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2012 (77 FR 19565). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 19565, April 2, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 162 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $13,770, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $1,588 for a cost of $2,183 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 19565, April 2, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by changing the airport formerly known as Oakland-Pontiac Airport to Oakland County International Airport and adjusting the geographic coordinates within Class D airspace to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

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

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

History

On April 18, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend controlled airspace at Fairfield, CA (77 FR 23171). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received in favor of the airspace amendment. Except for a minor editorial change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area at Travis AFB, Fairfield, CA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the projected decommissioning of the Travis VOR, and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

History

On April 3, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Livingston, MT (77 FR 19953). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E surface airspace at Livingston, Mission Field Airport, Livingston, MT. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Livingston TACAN. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

History

On April 18, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend controlled airspace at Woodland, CA (77 FR 23172). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication the National Aeronautical Navigation Services requested a minor adjustment to the geographic coordinates of the airport be made. Except for a minor editorial change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Watts-Woodland Airport, Woodland, CA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the projected decommissioning of the Travis VOR, and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

History

On April 10, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish controlled airspace at Eureka, NV (77 FR 21509). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Eureka Airport, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points or those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Hwy 160 drawbridge across Three Mile Slough, mile 0.1, at Rio Vista, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 12 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal for the passage of vessels as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The vertical lift drawspan may be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., July 9, 2012 to July 12, 2012, to allow Caltrans to install electrical equipment on the drawbridge. Vessels that can pass through the bridge in the closed to navigation position may continue to do so at any time. The drawspan can be opened upon one hour advance notice for emergencies if requested. An alternative path is available for navigation via the confluence of the Sacrament and San Joaquin Rivers. The drawspan will resume normal operation each day between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. and at the conclusion of the project. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on July 1, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Oswego Harbor near Oswego, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Oswego Independence Celebration Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 01, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY within an 840 foot radius of position 43°27′55.7″ N and 76°30′58.9″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Oswego Harbor on the evening of July 1, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only two hours early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following dates and times for the following events:

(1) Bay-Rama Fishfly Festival Fireworks, New Baltimore, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(30) will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on June 21, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 21, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on June 22, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 22, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on June 23, 2012.

(2) St. Clair Shores Fireworks, St. Clair Shores, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(40) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 29, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012.

(3) Target Fireworks, Detroit, MI.

The first safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(51) will not be enforced.

The second safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(51) will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 25, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 25, 2012, the second safety zone will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 26, 2012.

The third safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(51) will be enforced from 6:00 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 25, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 25, 2012, the third safety zone will be enforced from 6:00 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 26, 2012.

(4) Sigma Gamma Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(52) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on June 18, 2012.

(5) Harrisville Fireworks, Harrisville, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(8) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 7, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 8, 2012.

(6) Au Gres City Fireworks, Au Gres, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(3) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2012.

(7) Caseville Fireworks, Caseville, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(37) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 3, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 3, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(8) Grosse Isle Yacht Club Fireworks, Grosse Isle, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(45) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 3, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012.

(9) Lexington Independence Festival Fireworks, Lexington, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(43) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2012.

(10) Algonac Pickerel Tournament Fireworks, Algonac, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(38) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012.

(11) Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(36) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2012.

(12) Belle Maer Harbor 4th of July Fireworks, Harrison Township, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(47) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(13) City of St. Clair Fireworks, St. Clair, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(32) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(14) Port Austin Fireworks, Port Austin, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(34) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(15) Trenton Fireworks, Trenton, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(46) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(16) Grosse Pointe Yacht Club 4th of July Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(42) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(17) Trenton Rotary Roar on the River Fireworks, Trenton, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(10) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 20, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 21, 2012.

(18) Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, Marine City, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(14) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. until 10:20 p.m. on August 10, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on August 10, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. until 10:20 p.m. on August 11, 2012.

(19) Detroit International Jazz Festival Fireworks, Detroit, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(13) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on September 1, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on September 1, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on September 2, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on September 2, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on September 3, 2012.

(20) Port Sanilac 4th of July Fireworks, Port Sanilac, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(39) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 7, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 7, 2012, this regulation will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 8, 2012.

(21) Tawas City 4th of July Fireworks, Tawas City, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(48) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2012, this regulation will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

(22) Roostertail Fireworks (barge), Detroit, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941 (a)(1) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 22, 2012.

(23) The Old Club Fireworks, Harsens Island, MI.

The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941 (a)(4) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on June 30, 2012. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2012, this regulation will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within anyone of these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.23 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

On May 22, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; City of Tonawanda July 4th Celebration, Niagara River, Tonawanda, New York in the Federal Register (77 FR 30242). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may issue a rule less than 30 days before its effective date when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Accordingly, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this temporary final rule less than 30 days before its effective date because delaying the effective date of this temporary final rule would prevent its enforcement on the scheduled night of the event and thus, would preclude the Coast Guard from protecting spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Between 9:15 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on the waters of the Niagara River near Tonawanda, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

As mentioned above, no comments were received from the public in response to the NPRM that preceded this temporary rule. Furthermore, there were no changes made between the proposed rule and this temporary final rule. Thus, there are no comments and no changes to discuss.

Just as was described in the NPRM, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the boating public during the City of Tonawanda July 4th Celebration Fireworks. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2012. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Niagara River, Tonawanda, NY within a 1400 FT radius of position 43°01′39.59″ N, 78°53′07.48″ W (DATUM: NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Niagara River near Tonawanda, New York between 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2012.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 23, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Alexandria Bay Chamber of Commerce, St. Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY in the Federal Register (77 FR 30443). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may issue a rule less than 30 days before its effective date when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Accordingly, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this temporary final rule less than 30 days before its effective date because delaying the effective date of this temporary final rule would prevent its enforcement on the scheduled night of the event and thus, would preclude the Coast Guard from protecting spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Between 9:15 p.m. and 9:35 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on the waters of the St. Lawrence River near Alexandria Bay, New York. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

As mentioned above, no comments were received from the public in response to the NPRM that preceded this temporary rule. Furthermore, there were no changes made between the proposed rule and this temporary final rule. Thus, there are no comments and no changes to discuss.

Just as was described in the NPRM, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the boating public during the Alexandria Bay Chamber of Commerce Fireworks. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:05 p.m. on July 4, 2012. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the St. Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY within a 1,120 FT radius of position 44°20′39″ N, 75°55′16″ W (DATUM: NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Lawrence River near Alexandria Bay, NY between 8:45 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. on July 04, 2012.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 80 minutes late in the day when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Erie near Mentor, OH. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Mentor Harbor Yachting Club Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 3, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Mentor, OH within a 500 foot radius of position 41°43′36″ N, and 081°21′09″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie on the evening of July 3, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only an hour and a half late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

On May 23, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Olcott Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY in the Federal Register (77 FR 30451). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may issue a rule less than 30 days before its effective date when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Accordingly, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this temporary final rule less than 30 days before its effective date because delaying the effective date of this temporary final rule would prevent its enforcement on the scheduled night of the event and thus, would preclude the Coast Guard from protecting spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on the waters of Lake Ontario near Olcott, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

As mentioned above, no comments were received from the public in response to the NPRM that preceded this temporary rule. Furthermore, there were no changes made between the proposed rule and this temporary final rule. Thus, there are no comments and no changes to discuss.

Just as was described in the NPRM, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the boating public during the Olcott Fireworks. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 3, 2012. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY within a 1,120 FT radius of position 43°20′23.57″ N, 78°43′09.50″ W (DATUM: NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario near Olcott, NY between 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 3, 2012.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Sodus Bay near Sodus Point, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Village of Sodus Point Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 3, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Sodus Bay, Sodus Point, NY within a 1,120 foot radius of position 43°16′27″ N, and 076°58′27″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Sodus Bay on the evening of July 3, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only an hour and a half late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the application for this event in sufficient time to allow for publication of an NPRM, and any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would require either the cancellation of the event, or require that the event be held without a safety zone. For that reason it is impracticable to publish an NPRM.

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 . Delaying the effective date would be impracticable because the Coast Guard did not receive an application for this event in sufficient time to allow for publication more than 30 days prior to the date scheduled for the event, and any additional delay in the effective date would prevent the safety zone from being effective at the time of the event. Therefore, immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of vessels transiting the area.

On June 30, 2012, the Richmond County-Essex County Fireworks Committee will host a fireworks event over the navigable waters of the Rappahannock River in Tappahannock, VA centered on position 37°55′12″ N/076°49′12″ W (NAD 1983). Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris, the Coast Guard believes that vessel traffic should be temporarily restricted within 400 feet of the fireworks launch site.

The Captain of the Port is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Rappahannock River within the area bounded by a 400-foot radius circle centered on position 37°55′12″ N/076°49′12″ W (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be enforced in the vicinity of Tappahannock, VA from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 30, 2012, with a rain date of July 1, 2012 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. In the interest of public safety, general navigation within the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

This 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 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; (iii) mariners may transit the waters in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the Port or designated representative; and (iv), 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 rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

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

The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor on the Rappahannock River in the vicinity of Tappahannock, VA from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 30, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The temporary safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration and limited size. (ii) Before the enforcement period of June 30, 2012, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

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 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.

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

This rule calls 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

This rule will not 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

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

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

We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

Table of Contents I. What is the background for this final action? II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action? III. What is the effect of this final action? IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this final action?

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM 2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.” See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

On February 11, 2010, as supplemented November 19, 2010, GA EPD submitted revisions to Georgia's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas. On February 27, 2012, EPA published an action proposing a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP revision to address the first implementation period for regional haze. 1 See 77 FR 11452. EPA proposed a limited approval of Georgia's SIP revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for Georgia on the basis that these revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. See section II of this rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the proposed actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is provided in EPA's February 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR 11452.

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NO X and SO 2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (“the Transport Rule,” also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions than would Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in the states in which the Transport Rule applies (including Georgia). See 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).

Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule (including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

EPA received 928 sets of comments on the February 27, 2012, rulemaking proposing a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were received from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (on behalf of NPCA, Friends of the Chattahoochee, and GreenLaw) and from various individuals through NPCA (927 emails identical in substantive content). Full sets of the comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) are provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that EPA's proposal to replace Georgia's reliance on CAIR with a reliance on CSAPR to satisfy BART for SO 2 and NO X is credible. The Commenter incorporates by reference comments that it submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, regarding the Agency's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Georgia through a FIP. See 76 FR 82219. The Commenter enclosed one of the comment letters that it submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, and a comment letter that it submitted to EPA on March 22, 2012, on the Agency's proposed February 21, 2012, direct final rule adjusting several 2012 and 2014 budgets in the Transport Rule ( see 77 FR 10342). The Commenter restates several of its comments on those rulemaking actions, including the following: EPA's proposed December 30, 2011, “Better than BART” rule is inconsistent with the CAA and does not provide reasonable progress as required by the RHR; EPA cannot rely on the Transport Rule because the DC Circuit has indefinitely stayed the rule; EPA has not complied with the CAA's statutory requirements for a BART exemption; EPA has failed to make a state-by-state demonstration that CSAPR is better than BART; EPA included fatal methodological flaws in its proposed “Better than BART” determination; 2 EPA failed to account for the geographical and temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions inherent in a cap-and-trade program such as the Transport Rule; EPA's “Better than BART” analysis overstates the air quality benefits provided by the Transport Rule; EPA failed to consider that while allowances are issued for a given year, sources are under no obligation to ration the allowances out over the year; neither Georgia nor EPA has demonstrated that Transport Rule is “better than BART” as applied to Georgia; EPA failed to evaluate whether exempting Georgia electric generating units (EGUs) from BART complies with the CAA's reasonable progress mandate; and the changes to Georgia's CSAPR emission budget increase the likelihood that CSAPR will not achieve greater reasonable progress than BART at many Class I areas. The Commenter contends that these “shortcomings * * * impede the Agency's ability to finalize the proposed partial FIP or the proposed limited SIP approval for Georgia. Instead EPA must rectify these shortcomings and issue a proper federal plan in its place.”

Response 1: The comments regarding the alleged “shortcomings” in EPA's proposed “Better than BART” rule are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this action nor did EPA reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they relate to BART. 3 As noted above, EPA proposed to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Georgia in a separate action on December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and incorporating its comments on that separate action. EPA addressed the Commenter's February 28, 2012, comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012, and has determined that they do not affect the Agency's ability to issue a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP. EPA's responses to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that EPA does not have the authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP. The Commenter contends that section 110(k) of the Act only allows EPA to fully approve, partially approve and partially disapprove, conditionally approve, or fully disapprove a SIP.

Response 2: As discussed in the September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum cited in the proposed rulemaking, 4 although section 110(k) of the CAA may not expressly provide authority for limited approvals, the plain language of section 301(a) does provide “gap-filling” authority authorizing the Agency to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out” EPA's CAA functions. EPA may rely on section 301(a) in conjunction with the Agency's SIP approval authority in section 110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals where it has determined that a submittal strengthens a given state SIP and that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements of the Act are not separable from the provisions that do not meet the Act's requirements. EPA has adopted the limited approval approach numerous times in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years. A limited approval action is appropriate here because EPA has determined that Georgia's SIP revision addressing regional haze, as a whole, strengthen the State's SIP and because the provisions in the Georgia regional haze SIP are not separable.

The Commenter asserts that EPA's action “directly contradicts the plain language of the Clean Air Act” and cites several federal appellate court decisions to support its contention that section 110(k) of the Act limits EPA to a full approval, “a conditional approval, a partial approval and disapproval, or a full disapproval.” However, adopting the Commenter's position would ignore section 301 and violate the “ ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme’ * * *. A court must therefore interpret the statute ‘as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,’ * * * and ‘fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.’ ” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)). Furthermore, the cases cited by the Commenter did not involve challenges to a limited approval approach, and one of the cases, Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988) predates the 1990 CAA amendments enacting section 110(k).

Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that the proposed limited approval violates the CAA and RHR because EPA failed to evaluate or determine whether exempting Georgia's EGUs from BART complies with the Act's reasonable progress mandate. The Commenter supports its position by repeating statements made in its February 28, 2012, comments on the Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Georgia and other states subject to the Transport Rule. For example, the Commenter states that because [a]ll required components of a Regional Haze SIP or FIP affect each other, are part of a `single administrative action' and must be evaluated together,” EPA's “failure to consider together the proposed alternative BART program, the long-term strategy and reasonable progress goals in Georgia's SIP violates the Clean Air Act and RHR and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Response 3: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR for the Georgia regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the long-term strategy (LTS), and reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in that final rulemaking action and those responses support this limited approval action. 5

EPA believes that the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The basis for the assertion that GA EPD exempted EGUs from NO X BART and that it in some way affected the reasonable progress determinations for other sources is not clear. The reliance on CAIR in the Georgia submittal was consistent with EPA policy at the time the submittal was prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for CAIR, addressing the same regional EGU emissions, with many similar regulatory attributes. The need to address changes to the LTS resulting from the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR was acknowledged in the proposal, and as stated in the proposal, EPA believes the five-year progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the LTS. EPA expects that this demonstration will address the impacts on the RPG due to the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as well as other adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information on the emissions for other sources and source categories. If this assessment determines an adjustment to the regional haze plan is necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a year of the five-year progress report.

Comment 4: The Commenter contends that the BART determination for Interstate Paper is inadequate. Specifically, for the power boiler, the Commenter does not believe that the permit language limits the emissions from the power boiler since the permit allows for the use of fuel oil during times of natural gas curtailment and for the burning of non-condensable gases (NCG) when two other units are down, but does not adequately define or place limits on the duration of such events or the emissions that result. The Commenter states that the BART determination was also used inappropriately to allow the facility to avoid Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review for modifications to the Recovery Furnace and Paper Machine intended to increase production. The Commenter is concerned that at all three of these units, EPA proposes to approve no additional emissions controls for some pollutants but does not specify an appropriately stringent limit for the existing emissions. Finally, the Commenter believes there are a number of errors in the BART determination for this source including: assuming a low removal efficiency for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (80 percent instead of 90 percent); lack of technical, quantified justification for dismissing SCR as technically infeasible for the Recovery Boiler; and prematurely removing controls from examination based on economic factors alone.

Response 4: The Commenter overstates the scope and impact of the exemptions from the use of natural gas to address natural gas curtailments or for the burning of NCGs. EPA regards these exemptions as acceptable in this circumstance as permitted. Natural gas curtailment is commonly understood to be a forced reduction in service below contracted-for levels in response to inadequate pipeline capacity or inadequate natural gas supplies, both of which are beyond the control of the user ( see, e.g., 40 CFR 60.7575; Georgia Air Quality Control Rules 391-3-1-.02(rrr)(5)). Examples of situations that may trigger curtailment are hurricane damage to supplies or extreme cold weather requiring allocation of natural supplies to priority needs such as homes and hospitals. With regard to the NCG exemption, the power boiler, along with the lime kiln, is used as a backup control device to burn NCGs from other operations at the mill. The power boiler can only burn NCGs when the lime kiln (primary NCG control device) and the multi-fuel boiler (secondary NCG control device) are out-of-service. Both the latter two sources have existing SO 2 control devices on their exhaust streams. The current title V permit limits the SO 2 from NCG combustion to less than 40 tons per year. Although actual emissions are expected to be much less, this limit was used in the modeling of the impacts of this source for BART.

Regarding any relationship between the BART determination and PSD requirements, decisions on PSD applicability are subject to separate provisions of the CAA and are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. With regard the existing emissions limits, all other emissions limits used in assessing the impact of the facility are contained in the title V permit and are appropriately stringent. Finally, with regard to the “flaws” cited in the BART determination, EPA finds that the analysis was conducted in accordance with the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) and that the State appropriately considered the statutory factors. Additional NO X controls were not considered (e.g., SCR) as BART due to the relatively small benefit to visibility from these controls.

Comment 5: The Commenter believes that the PM BART determination for Georgia Power—Plant Bowen is inadequate, that Georgia did not demonstrate the appropriateness of only evaluating PM BART for EGUs, and that the State did not evaluate the impact of PM for a number of EGUs that are more appropriately considered subject to BART than Plant Bowen. The Commenter expressed the following concerns with the proposed BART determination: It concludes that no additional controls are needed, and therefore does not require an emissions limit; it must reflect filterable and condensable PM; not all feasible control options were evaluated (e.g., fabric filters); the cost estimates and cost effectiveness values were overestimated; and control options that involve improvements to existing controls were not completely addressed.

Response 5: Plant Bowen is subject to emissions limits, and the PM emissions limits from its electrostatic precipitator (ESP) are identified in the facility's title V permit. Furthermore, all PM was considered in the BART determination; each evaluated control option in Georgia's regional haze SIP considered the contribution of total PM 10 and PM 2.5 (as a subset of the total PM 10 ) as well as condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid mist) (see Appendix H.8 of Georgia's February 2010 regional haze SIP submittal). The installed controls on both facilities are effective at reducing filterable and condensable particulates. Regarding modeling in Georgia's regional haze SIP that uses PM only for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously determined that this approach is appropriate for EGUs where the State proposed to rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO 2 and NO X . 6

Regarding the need to assess all feasible control options, including improvements to existing controls, as is stated in EPA's BART Guidelines, available retrofit control options are those air pollution control technologies with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation. In identifying “all” options, a state must identify the most stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies. It is not necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that exist for a given technology; the list is complete if it includes the maximum level of control that each technology is capable of achieving. 7 In this instance, each of the EGU's PM emissions is already controlled by ESPs and wet flue gas desulphurization (FGD), (SO 2 scrubbers) which were installed on Plant Bowen between 2008 and 2010. Georgia Power identified the following four potential additional control technologies: (a) High voltage power conditioners (juice cans); (b) particle agglomerators; (c) the combination of juice cans and particle agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. Wet ESPs are the only control option that resulted in a modeled visibility improvement greater than 0.01 deciview. Wet ESPs were predicted to improve visibility by approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciview for each unit at a cost effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909 per ton. In addition, the wet ESP would consume additional electricity and have non-air environmental impacts. The combination high voltage power conditioner (juice can);/particle agglomerator option modeled a visibility benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to $21,914 per ton SO 2 .

While the adjustments to the cost analyses suggested by the Commenter would lower the cost effectiveness of the options evaluated, the suggested changes would not be large enough to change the BART determination. The State evaluated the cost effectiveness, visibility impacts, and energy and non-air environmental impacts of these control options. GA EPD determined that no additional control was reasonable for BART for this facility and EPA agrees with this determination. EPA finds the BART determination for Plant Bowen was conducted in a manner consistent with EPA guidance.

Comment 6: The Commenter states that due to its reliance on CAIR (and now CSAPR), Georgia failed to evaluate numerous sources that contribute significantly to visibility impairment at the Cohutta Wilderness Area (Cohutta). The Commenter also states that none of the CAIR or CSAPR sources have a completed BART determination for NO X or SO 2 since CSAPR allocations are not determined on an assessment of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPG. Because of this, the Commenter states that neither Georgia nor EPA has determined whether additional progress at Cohutta would be reasonable based on the statutory factors, and this responsibility cannot be excused simply because Cohutta may meet the URP. The Commenter also believes that Georgia and EPA excused the No. 4 boiler at the Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard Mill from additional control based on the predicted ability to meet the URP at Cohutta, despite identifying otherwise cost-effective control options, and that this decision does not fulfill the State's obligation to go beyond the URP in evaluating reasonable progress and in establishing RPGs.

Response 6: The State's reliance on CAIR was consistent with EPA guidance and has been addressed through the limited disapproval June 7, 2012, final action. The Commenter's concerns regarding CSAPR were also addressed in that June 7, 2012, rulemaking. Any differences in the RPGs that result from the reliance on CAIR will be addressed in the five-year review.

Regarding the Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard Mill, as was stated in the proposal (77 FR 11468) and in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, 8 the states have wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. States must consider the four statutory factors, at a minimum, in determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to take these factors into consideration. GA EPD's reasonable progress control analysis reviewed: (a) Two wet FGD configurations (magnesium enhanced lime) and limestone forced oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); (c) fuel switching; and (d) dry sorbent injection. The State determined that none of the control options considered for Power Boiler 4 is reasonable at this time. A key factor in determining what was considered “reasonable” for reasonable progress requirements for this source is that the improvement in visibility from the emissions controls evaluated ranged from 0.11 to 0.17 inverse megameters at the affected Class I areas impacted by this unit. The State determined, and EPA agrees, that none of the control options considered for Power Boiler 1 is reasonable given the predicted visibility improvement.

Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a “presumptive target;” rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See 64 FR 35731, 35732, July 1, 1999. In determining RPGs for Georgia's Class I areas, the State identified sources through its area of influence methodology for reasonable progress control evaluation and described those evaluations in its SIP. Thus, the State went beyond the URP analysis to identify and evaluate sources for potential control under reasonable progress in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance.

Comment 7: According to the Commenter, additional reasonable progress is necessary at the Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness Areas, where the URP is not predicted to be met. The Commenter states that Georgia has a responsibility to ensure that all necessary emissions reductions take place and must show that its RPGs are reasonable based on the evaluation of any potentially affected sources. The Commenter regards Georgia's efforts to only evaluate sources that contributed to visibility impairment from SO 2 over a certain threshold as inadequate. The Commenter recommends that EPA ensure that additional sources, if not all contributing sources of all visibility-impairing pollutants, be evaluated for reasonable progress.

Response 7: EPA's RHR requires states to establish RPGs, measured in deciviews, for each mandatory federal Class I area for the purpose of improving visibility on the haziest days and ensuring no degradation in visibility on the clearest days over the period of each implementation plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). RPGs are interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvement over time toward the goal of natural background conditions and are developed in consultation with other affected states and Federal Land Managers.

The RHR establishes an additional analytical requirement for states in the process of establishing the RPG. This analytical requirement requires states to determine the rate of improvement in visibility needed to reach natural conditions by 2064, and to set each RPG taking this “glidepath” into account. EPA adopted this approach, in part, to ensure that states use a common analytical framework that accounts for the regional differences affecting visibility and, in part, to ensure an informed and equitable decision making process. The glidepath is not a presumptive target, and states may establish a RPG that provides for greater, lesser, or equivalent visibility improvement as that described by the glidepath. As noted in EPA guidance, in deciding what amount of emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, the states may take into account the fact that the long-term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses several implementation periods. 9

Consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, GA EPD performed a detailed analysis to determine which sources and emissions most contributed to visibility impairment. The conclusion of this analysis was that Georgia should consider what additional control measures for electric utilities and industrial boilers are reasonable. GA EPD also determined that it was appropriate to also consider additional control measures from industrial sources other than boilers that contributed to the same magnitude of visibility impairment as boilers, and EPA agrees with this determination. Under Georgia's rule, “Clean Air Interstate Rule SO 2 Annual Trading Program,” which incorporates by reference all the provisions of EPA's CAIR rule, SO 2 emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. See Georgia Air Quality Control Rules 391-3-1-.02(13).

For sources that significantly contribute to visibility impairment at mandatory Class I federal areas not clearly meeting the URP (such as Okefenokee and Wolf Island), GA EPD did consider additional controls at CAIR-affected units. However, the State concluded, based on the four statutory factors, that no additional emissions reductions beyond CAIR from these sources were reasonable for this implementation period, and EPA agrees with the State's determination. Expected emissions reductions are projected to achieve a 3.28 deciviews of improvement in visibility at Okefenokee and Wolf Island by 2018, while 3.6 deciviews of improvement in visibility would meet URP in 2018. Since the Okefenokee and Wolf Island RPGs show a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain natural conditions by 2064 (i.e., the URP or glidepath), GA EPD estimated that an additional 6-7 years are needed to attain natural conditions. EPA concludes that Georgia's RPGs were developed consistent with the RHR and EPA guidance.

Comment 8: The Commenter states that in several instances, Georgia's reasonable progress determinations relied on the predicted decrease in heat input from the subject sources. According to the Commenter, this assumed decrease in heat input cannot be relied upon unless it is enforceable.

Response 8: Georgia's modeling for 2018 projects its best estimate of likely emissions based on the expected capacity utilization at each facility in 2018, not a worst case based on all facilities operating at maximum allowable capacity. As part of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) air quality modeling, VISTAS, in cooperation with the other eastern regional planning organizations (RPOs), generated future-year emissions inventories for the electric generating sector of the contiguous United States using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). IPM is a dynamic linear optimization model that can be used to examine air pollution control policies for various pollutants throughout the contiguous United States for the entire electric power system. The dynamic nature of IPM enables projection of the behavior of the power system over a specified future period. The IPM considers growth in demand for electricity, the construction of new units, changes in fuel mix, as well as a predicted set of emissions controls results in some units projected as having greater utilization (and greater heat input) while others are projected to have less utilization (and less heat input). Optimization logic in IPM determines the least-cost means of meeting electric generation and capacity requirements while complying with specified constraints including air pollution regulations, transmission bottlenecks, and plant-specific operational constraints. The IPM modeling runs took into consideration both CAIR implementation and Georgia's rule, “Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,” requirements for Georgia Power. See Georgia Air Quality Control Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss). EPA regards this as an appropriate means to project future emissions and changes in visibility.

The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that differences from projected emissions are considered and their impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated with modeled emissions projections into the future are addressed through the requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each state to submit a report every five years evaluating progress toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the state and for each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state. Since this five-year progress re-evaluation is a mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary for EPA to take additional measures to “ensure” that the projections of heat input are legally enforceable. In the specific instances cited by the Commenter, the State's analysis of projected capacity utilization and the resultant heat input and the State's reliance on these projections to establish its RPGs meet the requirements of the regional haze regulations and EPA guidance.

Comment 9: The Commenter expresses concern with the interrelationship of EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP submittal in the December 30, 2011, action proposing to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART,” and EPA's proposed limited approval of the Georgia's regional haze SIP in EPA's February 27, 2012 action. The “Better than BART” action states that EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the LTS and that EPA intends to act on the LTS in a separate action whereas the limited approval action states that EPA is not taking action on Georgia's regional haze SIP insofar as it relied on CAIR, which according to the Commenter, “presumably includes” Georgia's LTS. The Commenter believes that each of these actions “promises that the other will provide a [LTS] but neither rule actually does * * * underscore[ing] the inappropriateness of a `limited approval.'” The Commenter contends that the SIP must include an adequate LTS that has been subject to public notice and comment. The Commenter also believes that EPA should disapprove Georgia's regional haze SIP because the State's source retirement discussion, required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) as part of a state's LTS development, was inadequate as it was “limited to now out of date information describing existing, not future, emissions” and “contained little discussion of changes in energy and other markets and their likely effect on EGUs and possibly non-EGUs.”

Response 9: EPA explained in its February 27, 2012, action that the Agency was proposing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, SIP revision and November 19, 2010, SIP supplement, addressing regional haze because these revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.

In the February 27 action, EPA also explained that the Agency had proposed a limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP in the December 30 “Better than BART” rule because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA stated that it was not proposing to take action in the February 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking on issues associated with Georgia's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. The limited approval action acted as approval of the entire regional haze SIP, including the LTS, even though it is deficient due to the State's reliance on CAIR. EPA believes that these actions provided sufficient notice allowing the public to comment on the adequacy of the LTS as evidenced by the Commenter's remarks regarding the substance of the State's strategy.

Regarding the content of the LTS, as was discussed in the Georgia SIP revisions and in the February 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking, Georgia did evaluate the potential contributions of all anthropogenic sources and concluded that the preponderance of the visibility impairment was due to sulfates. In particular, for Okefenokee and Cohutta, sulfate particles resulting from SO 2 emissions contribute roughly 69 and 84 percent, respectively, to the calculated light extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed five percent or less of the calculated light extinction at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Since sulfate particles resulting from SO 2 emissions are the dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the three Georgia Class I areas, Georgia concluded that reducing SO 2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits.

Georgia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) to develop its LTS as described in detail in the proposed rulemaking. Source retirement and replacement schedules are explicitly part of the emissions inventory that is used to project future conditions and provide a realistic estimate of future visibility impairing emissions from the identified sources. At the time that the analyses were completed, they were based on the best information available. The projected inventories for 2009 and 2018 account for post-2002 emissions reductions from promulgated and proposed federal, state, local, and site-specific control programs.

For EGUs, the IPM was run to estimate emissions of the proposed and existing units in 2009 and 2018 based on expected future demand. Where future demand is projected to exceed existing capacity, IPM adds additional units. Future fuel type usage at individual plants and changes to fuel types were modeled based on the expected availability of fuels, capability of the plant and least cost dispatch projections based on expected price and control requirements. These results were further adjusted based on state and local air agencies' knowledge of planned emissions controls at specific EGUs.

For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently updated growth and control data consistent with the data used in EPA's CAIR analyses supplemented by state and local air agencies' data and updated forecasts from the U.S. Department of Energy. These updates are documented in the MACTEC emissions inventory report “Documentation of the 2002 Base Year and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories for VISTAS” dated February 2007 (Appendix C of the February 2010 Georgia regional haze SIP submittal).

As explained in the proposed rulemaking, these projections can be expected to change as additional information regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change their emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to comply with new rules. To address this, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to follow this process in the LTS portion of its submittal.

Comment 10: The Commenter states that EPA should improve its proposal, enforce the regional haze program, fully evaluate all emissions control options, and require controls that are reasonable, efficient, and cost effective to “clear the haze along the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.” The Commenter believes that EPA has “proposed to exempt” Georgia's oldest power plants from “long-standing cleanup requirements in favor of an existing program that, in some cases, will mean little or no actual cleanup.” The Commenter also contends that sources outside of Georgia contribute to regional haze in the aforementioned areas and that those sources “must be made responsible.”

Response 10: As discussed in the proposed rulemaking action, states have discretion in weighing the factors that they must consider in evaluating control determinations to satisfy BART and reasonable progress requirements, and EPA finds that Georgia's determinations are consistent with the RHR and EPA guidance. EPA did not propose to “exempt” any Georgia sources from regional haze requirements in favor of any existing program. As allowed by the regional haze regulations at the time, Georgia relied on CAIR for some of its power plants rather than performing source-specific BART evaluations. For reasonable progress, Georgia concluded that additional EGU control beyond CAIR during the first implementation period was not reasonable for these sources after consideration of the four statutory factors for each of the affected units.

Regarding sources outside of Georgia and their contribution to visibility impairment at Georgia's Class I areas, as discussed in the proposed rulemaking (77 FR 11474-11475), Georgia's regional haze SIP satisfies the regional haze requirements to identify out-of-state sources that cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the State's Class I areas and documents consultations with such states to obtain any appropriate emissions reductions. The State notes in its SIP that many of these sources located in other states are subject to control because of CAIR's requirements.

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6), and EPA's long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 10 Today, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, and November 19, 2010, regional haze SIP revisions. This limited approval results in approval of Georgia's entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is taking this approach because Georgia's SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the State and having federal approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being included in its SIP.

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the Georgia SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on February 11, 2010, as supplemented November 19, 2010, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons. * * * 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.

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

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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

EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. What is the background for this final action? II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action? III. What is the effect of this final action? IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this final action?

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM 2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.” See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

On July 15, 2008, ADEM submitted a revision to Alabama's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas. On February 28, 2012, EPA published an action proposing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP revision to address the first implementation period for regional haze. 1 See 77 FR 11937. EPA proposed a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Alabama on the basis that this revision, as a whole, strengthens the Alabama SIP. See section II of this rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the proposed actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is provided in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR 11937.

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NO X and SO 2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (“the Transport Rule,” also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions than would best available retrofit technology (BART) in the states in which the Transport Rule applies (including Alabama). See 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).

Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule (including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

EPA received two sets of comments on the February 28, 2012, rulemaking proposing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were received from the Sierra Club and ADEM. Full sets of the comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) are provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that ADEM can rely on CAIR or the Transport Rule to exempt the eight power plants with BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) from an SO 2 and NO X BART analysis. The Commenter enclosed letters that it submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, with its comments on the Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is “better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Alabama and other states subject to the Transport Rule. See 76 FR 82219. The Commenter incorporates the comments in this letter by reference and repeats a subset of those comments, including the following: The Transport Rule cannot serve as a BART alternative for the regional haze SIP process in Alabama; EPA has not demonstrated that the Transport Rule assures greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART; EPA failed to account for the geographical and temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions inherent in a cap-and-trade program such as the Transport Rule; EPA underestimated the visibility improvements from BART using “presumptive BART, rather than actual BART;” “case specific BART determinations for SO 2 emissions from EGUs in Alabama would almost certainly ensure greater progress than would be achieved by CSAPR;” and EPA has not accounted for the differences in averaging time under BART, the Transport Rule, and in measuring visibility impacts.

Response 1: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In today's rule, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this action nor did EPA reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they relate to BART. 2 As noted above, EPA proposed to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Alabama in a separate action on December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and incorporating its comments on that separate action. EPA addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012, and has determined that they do not affect the Agency's ability to finalize a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP. EPA's responses to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov .

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that because “the BART component of Alabama's RH SIP is an essential element to the state's LTS for achieving it RPGs, Alabama's treatment of CAIR (and now EPA's proposed substitution of CSAPR for CAIR) as an acceptable BART-alternative must be addressed in this present comment process. Separating the BART analysis from the remaining portion of the RH SIP would result in an inadequate SIP.” The Commenter supports its position by repeating statements made in its February 28, 2012, comments on the Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is “Better than BART” and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Alabama and other states subject to the Transport Rule. For example, the Commenter states that “EPA cannot exempt sources from the RHR's BART requirements without full consideration of how that exemption would affect the overarching reasonable progress mandate.”

Response 2: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR for the Alabama regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the LTS, and RPGs in that final rulemaking action and those responses support this limited approval action. 3

EPA believes the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The reliance on CAIR in the Alabama submittal was consistent with EPA policy at the time the submittal was prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for CAIR, addressing the same regional EGU emissions, with many similar regulatory attributes. The need to address changes to the LTS resulting from the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR was acknowledged in the proposal, and as stated in the proposal, EPA believes that the five-year progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the LTS. EPA expects that this demonstration will address the impacts on the RPG due to the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as well as other adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information on the emissions for other sources and source categories. If this assessment determines an adjustment to the regional haze plan is necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a year of the five-year progress report.

Comment 3: The Commenter believes that Alabama should have considered the cumulative impacts of the particulate matter (PM) emissions from the State's PM BART-eligible EGUs when performing BART exemption modeling and that the State should not have modeled these sources in isolation of one another or without regard to PM emissions from sources in other states which impact the Sipsey Wilderness Area (Sipsey) or any Class I area. The Commenter also believes that ADEM should have considered both filterable and condensable PM when conducting this modeling.

Response 3: As discussed in the proposal, ( see section IV.C.6.B.2, February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11950-11951), Alabama adequately justified its contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. While states have the discretion to set an appropriate contribution threshold considering the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I area at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts, the states' analysis must be consistent with the CAA, the RHR, and EPA's Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with the regulations and EPA's guidance, “the contribution threshold should be used to determine whether an individual source is reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment. You should not aggregate the visibility effects of multiple sources and compare their collective effects against your contribution threshold because this would inappropriately create a `contribution to contribution' test.” See also 70 FR 39121. Alabama's analysis in the regional haze SIP revision was consistent with EPA's regulations and guidance on the issue of cumulative analyses.

It is unclear what condensable PM emissions the Commenter believes that the State should have included in its visibility modeling. Each of the units evaluated for BART in Alabama's regional haze SIP followed the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) modeling protocol and considered the contribution of total PM 10 and PM 2.5 (as a subset of the total PM 10 ) as well as condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid mist) (see Appendix H.9 of Alabama's regional haze SIP). Regarding modeling in Alabama's submittal that uses PM only for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously determined that this approach is appropriate for EGUs where the State proposed to rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO 2 and NO X . 4

Comment 4: The Commenter disagrees with ADEM's BART analyses for the five BART eligible-units at the Solutia, Inc., facility in Decatur, Alabama, as well as its analyses for the seven BART-eligible units at International Paper's Courtland, Alabama, facility (International Paper). In particular, the Commenter states that Alabama's BART analyses failed to consider all available retrofit technologies. The Commenter identified combustion controls that “should be considered for NO X BART” including: flue gas recirculation, overfire air, low NO X burners, and ultra low NO X burners; as well as post-combustion controls such as: selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). Regarding SO 2 BART, the Commenter believes that ADEM should have considered additional controls such as: “a number of post-combustion flue gas desulfurization options” (e.g., dry sorbent injection, spray dryer absorbers, wet scrubbers, circulating dry scrubbers) as well as fuel switching (e.g., switching from coal to oil). For PM BART, the Commenter identifies the following controls for consideration: changing the operation of any air pre-heaters; installing fabric filters or baghouses; installing or upgrading electrostatic precipitators (ESPs); switching to wet ESPs; upgrading electrodes (e.g., possibly changing from wire to rigid discharge electrode); switching to “a lower sulfur coal or a different sort or blend of fuel;” addition of a trona injection system; installation of scrubbers; and upgrading any existing scrubbers. The Commenter believes that Alabama should have considered all of the above-mentioned control options when conducting its BART analyses, regardless of their comparative costs.

The Commenter also contends that ADEM: Ignored less costly yet equally efficient controls; should have fully considered options for improving existing controls instead of just those involving a complete replacement of control devices (e.g., ESP upgrade options);” should have evaluated different combinations of controls in making its BART determinations; and must ensure that current controls are actually operating at BART levels where ADEM concluded that those controls are BART. Finally, the Commenter believes that it is not possible to determine if the proper costing methodology was followed by these sources “without supporting data in the docket.”

Response 4: As stated in EPA's BART Guidelines, available retrofit control options are those air pollution control technologies with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation. In identifying “all” options, a state must identify the most stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies. It is not necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that exist for a given technology; the list is complete if it includes the maximum level of control that each technology is capable of achieving. 5

Attachment H-6 to Appendix H of the State's regional haze SIP submittal summarizes the State's assessment of the available strategies evaluated at each facility for BART, including many of the control options that the Commenter believes were ignored by ADEM; assesses the five statutory BART factors, including ADEM's estimates of the costs of control sufficient to identify and evaluate the cost methodology employed; and describes ADEM's basis for accepting or rejecting each measure as BART. For example, ADEM notes in Appendix H that Solutia has already installed a rotating opposed fired air combustion control system to reduce NO X formation from Boiler No. 7. ADEM identified SNCR and SCR as available post-combustion control options for this unit and noted that modeling for all of the NO X control options evaluated indicated relatively small to no reduction in visibility impacts, even with the maximum additional NO X control. In considering the five BART statutory factors for this unit, ADEM relied most heavily on the lack of visibility improvement at any federal Class I areas as the basis for its BART determination. Modeling lesser options would not have changed this result. Similar analyses and similar results were attained for all the BART-subject units at this facility and at International Paper. EPA has reviewed ADEM's analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these sources. Emissions limits for these operations are contained in the State's title V permits for these facilities.

Comment 5: The Commenter disagrees with ADEM's methodology for identifying pollutants and sources subject to a reasonable progress analysis. The concerns identified by the Commenter include an “incomplete identification of emissions units likely to have the largest impacts on visibility” at federal Class I areas; improper reliance on CAIR to exempt out-of-state EGUs from conducting reasonable progress analyses; and a failure to identify and consider all proposed major new sources or major modifications to sources within and outside of the State.

Regarding in-state sources, the Commenter notes that ADEM's SO 2 area of influence (AOI) methodology captured only 55 percent of the total point source SO 2 contribution to visibility impairment in Sipsey and only 61-73 percent of the total contribution at federal Class I areas in neighboring states. The Commenter believes that, due to cumulative impacts, the reasonable progress analysis should have encompassed a greater number of units with SO 2 emissions that impact the State's Class I area and that Alabama's LTS should have further considered reducing NO X and ammonia emissions.

For the out-of-state CAIR EGUs that impact Alabama's Class I area, the Commenter believes that ADEM must conduct reasonable progress control analyses in order to determine which emissions control measures would be needed at these EGUs to make reasonable progress toward improving visibility at Sipsey and reiterates statements made in its aforementioned February 28, 2012, comment letter regarding EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rule.

Regarding proposed major new sources or major modifications new sources, the Commenter states that there is no evidence that Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal complies with the requirement in 40 CFR 51.306(d) that the LTS provides for review of the impacts from any new major stationary source or major modifications on visibility in any mandatory Class I area in accordance with 40 CFR 51.307, 51.166, 51.160 and any binding guidance insofar as these provisions pertain to protection of visibility. According to the Commenter, ADEM should have identified these sources and any increases in emissions resulting from installation and operation of new pollution controls (e.g., increased ammonia emissions from new SCRs and SNCRs) and considered them in a cumulative impact analysis for Sipsey.

Response 5: Concerning the State's AOI methodology for the identification of emission units for reasonable progress evaluation, as noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance  6 and discussed further in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposal action on the Alabama regional haze SIP submittal (77 FR 11949), the RHR gives states wide latitude to determine additional control requirements, and there are many ways to approach identifying additional reasonable measures as long as they consider the four statutory factors. Further, states have considerable flexibility in how to take these factors into consideration. EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance recognizes that there are numerous ways to approach development of the LTS and to focus on those source categories that may have the greatest impact on visibility at Class 1 areas, considering the statutory factors at a minimum. 7 Significant control programs are being implemented nationally and across the southeast during the first implementation period, as described in chapter 7 of Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal. The impact of programs such as CAIR, CSAPR, and the NO X SIP Call are being realized regionally, and the implementation of these programs in Alabama will significantly reduce emissions and improve visibility at Sipsey and at federal Class I areas outside Alabama.

Regarding its reliance on CAIR, the State took into account emissions reductions expected from CAIR to determine the 2018 reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for its Class I areas. This approach was fully consistent with EPA guidance at the time of SIP development. ADEM determined that no additional SO 2 controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for its EGUs in the first implementation period based on the State's review of the statutory factors (i.e., the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources) as evaluated by EPA for CAIR, and that CAIR is expected to reduce EGU SO 2 emissions by approximately 70 percent.

Regarding the consideration of new sources and major modifications, the Alabama regional haze SIP revisions subject to this rulemaking address the regional haze requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 whereas the regulation cited by the Commenter, 40 CFR 51.306(d), 40 CFR 51.307, 51.166, and 51.160, are specific to the new source review (NSR) requirements for RAVI. Furthermore, as identified in footnote 19 of EPA's the February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking 77 FR 11955, Alabama has already addressed the NSR requirements for visibility (40 CFR 51.307) and RAVI LTS (40 CFR 51.306) in its SIP. New sources and major modifications are also explicitly part of the emissions inventory used to project future conditions.

The projected inventories for 2009 and 2018 account for post-2002 emissions reductions from promulgated and proposed federal, state, local, and site-specific control programs and account for expected growth in emissions from new sources. For EGUs, the Integrated Planning Model was run to estimate emissions of the proposed and existing units in 2009 and 2018. These results were adjusted based on state and local air agencies' knowledge of planned emissions controls at specific EGUs. For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently updated growth and control data consistent with the data used in EPA's CAIR analyses supplemented by state and local air agencies' data and updated forecasts from the U.S. Department of Energy. These updates are documented in the MACTEC emissions inventory report “Documentation of the 2002 Base Year and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories for VISTAS” dated February 2007 (Appendix D of Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal). The technical information provided in the record demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately reflects projection 2018 conditions and that the LTS meets the requirements of the RHR and is approvable. EPA finds that these inventories provide a reasonable assessment of future emissions from North Carolina sources.

Comment 6: The Commenter believes that ADEM improperly exempted several sources from a reasonable progress evaluation for SO 2 even though the State determined that these sources were above its minimum threshold for performing such an analysis and reiterates statements made in its aforementioned February 28, 2012, comment letters regarding EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rule. The Commenter disagrees with ADEM's decision to exempt EGUs subject to CAIR from conducting reasonable progress analyses. As for non-EGUs subject to BART, the Commenter accepts ADEM's conclusion that the BART determinations satisfy requirements under the RHR's reasonable progress provisions for International Paper and Solutia; however, the Commenter disagrees with Alabama's BART determinations for these units.

Response 6: See the response to Comment 5 regarding the State's determination that no additional SO 2 controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for its EGUs in the first implementation period. Regarding the BART determinations for non-EGUs, EPA has reviewed the ADEM analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these sources (see response to Comment 4).

Comment 7: According to the Commenter, the cost effectiveness analysis used to make the reasonable progress determination for the Cargill, Inc. facility (Cargill) was flawed, and therefore, EPA cannot approve Alabama's proposed SIP. The Commenter contends that the inputs used for the efficiency of the pollution controls analyzed and the costs attributed to those controls were improper.

Response 7: Cargill shut down operations of this facility in 2009 and sold the site to DeBruce Grain in August 2010. DeBruce Grain plans to operate a grain handling, shipping, and storage facility and is no longer expected to be a main contributor to regional haze.

Comment 8: The Commenter states that ADEM improperly estimated emissions reductions for 2018 and that Alabama's projection of future visibility conditions for 2018 is based on “uncertain federal and state pollution control projects, including, in large part, on the emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR.” The Commenter also believes that anticipated emissions reductions resulting from the other control programs considered by Alabama (e.g., Industrial Boiler MACT, the Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area SIP) are just as uncertain as those resulting under CAIR and the Transport Rule, and that Alabama “need[s] to base its LTS on concrete, definite SO 2 emissions reductions.” Because of the alleged uncertainty of the actual reductions predicted under the pollution control programs identified by the Commenter, the Commenter believes that additional SO 2 reductions are necessary at this time to ensure that Alabama's RPGs are met. The Commenter requests that, at a minimum, EPA should ensure that ADEM follows through on its commitment to re-evaluate its ability to meet its RPGs in the five-year progress review. While the Commenter acknowledges that the RPGs exceed the uniform rate of progress and are projected to be met, it contends that the State should “go beyond the URP [uniform rate of progress] analysis in establishing RPGs and do everything it can to ensure visibility impacts to affected Class I areas are reduced.”

Response 8: The technical information provided in the record demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately reflects projected 2018 conditions and should be approved. Alabama's 2018 projections are based on the State's technical analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and level of activity for EGUs, other point sources, nonpoint sources, on-road sources, and off-road sources based on their emissions in the 2002 base year, considering growth and additional emissions controls to be in place and federally enforceable by 2018. The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses that was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Alabama projected 2002 emissions (the latest region-wide inventory available at the time the submittal was being developed) and applied reductions expected from federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of volatile organic compounds and the visibility impairing pollutants NO X , PM, and SO 2.

To minimize the differences between the 2018 projected emissions used in the Alabama regional haze submittal and what actually occurs in 2018, the RHR requires that the five-year review address any expected significant differences due to changed circumstances from the initial 2018 projected emissions, provide updated expectations regarding emissions for the implementation period, and evaluate the impact of these differences on RPGs. It is expected that individual projections within a statewide inventory will vary from actual emissions over a 16-year period. For example, some facilities shut down whereas others expand operations. Furthermore, economic projections and population changes used to estimate growth often differ from actual events; new rules are modified, changing their expected effectiveness; and methodologies to estimate emissions improve, modifying emissions estimates. The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that these expected differences from projected emissions are considered and their impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated with modeled emissions projections into the future are addressed through the requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each state to submit a report every five years evaluating progress toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the state and for each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state. Since this five-year progress re-evaluation is a mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary for EPA to take additional measures to “ensure” that the State meets its reporting obligation. In the specific instances of uncertainty of future reductions cited by the Commenter, the State's analysis of projected emissions and its reliance on these projections to establish its RPGs meets the requirements of the regional haze regulations and EPA guidance.

Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a “presumptive target;” rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See 64 FR 35731. In determining RPGs for Alabama's Class I area, the State identified sources through its AOI methodology for reasonable progress control evaluation and described those evaluations in its SIP. Thus, the State went beyond the URP to identify and evaluate sources for potential control under reasonable progress in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance.

Comment 9: The Commenter contends that Alabama's regional haze SIP must require revisions to address RAVI within three years of a Federal Land Manager (FLM) certifying visibility impairment and that the State's commitment to address RAVI, should a FLM certify visibility impairment, is not enough.

Response 9: The SIP revisions do not address RAVI requirements since this was the subject of previous rulemakings. EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI LTS provisions with those for regional haze and the RAVI portion of a SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs. However, as stated in the February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking, the FLMs have not identified any integral vistas in Alabama, the Class I area in Alabama is not experiencing RAVI, and no Alabama sources are affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the July 15, 2008, Alabama regional haze SIP revision did not explicitly address the coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS although Alabama made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment from an individual source. EPA finds that Alabama's regional haze SIP appropriately supplements and augments the State's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the LTS provisions as Alabama has done. The commitments in Alabama's SIP are consistent with the regulatory requirements for this provision.

Comment 10a: The Commenter claims that Alabama's regional haze SIP does not explain how monitoring data and other information is used to determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas within and outside Alabama. Therefore, the Commenter believes that EPA must disapprove Alabama's regional haze SIP.

Comment 10b: The Commenter states that the SIP must clearly state the method by which the State intends to report visibility monitoring to the EPA. Additionally, the Commenter states that if Alabama plans to rely on the referenced Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site for reporting, the SIP must clearly state that Alabama intends to use the Web site as its way of reporting visibility monitoring data. “If Alabama intends to use another method of reporting visibility, the proposal needs to explain that. If Alabama intends to use VIEWS for reporting, it is not sufficient for Alabama to `encourage' VISTAS to maintain the Web site.” The Commenter also states that the Alabama SIP needs to have an enforceable mechanism to transmit the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data to EPA as well as an enforceable mechanism to ensure that the IMPROVE data is continually gathered. The “SIP must include an enforceable requirement that the data is gathered by Alabama unless it is gathered by other entities such as VISTAS and the National Park Service.” The Commenter concludes by stating that “[b]ecause such an enforceable requirement is missing, EPA must disapprove the SIP submittal in this regard.”

Responses 10a, 10b: As noted by the Commenter, the primary monitoring network for regional haze in Alabama is the IMPROVE network, and there is currently one IMPROVE site in Alabama, within the Bankhead National Forest and managed by the FLM, which serves as the monitoring site for Sipsey. IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the Alabama regional haze submittal and in providing annual visibility data to EPA. Monitoring data is different from emissions data or analyses conducted to attribute contribution. These analyses are part of the ten-year implementation period updates conducted by the states.

In its SIP revision, Alabama states its intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze implementation periods. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data. The VIEWS Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other regional planning organizations (RPOs) to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. Alabama is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. Alabama cannot legally bind federal and state legislatures to continue to fund the monitoring program for regional haze. Alabama's SIP adequately addresses this provision and explains how monitoring data and other information has been and will be used to determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at federal Class I areas.

Comment 11: The Commenter believes that EPA should fully approve the State's implementation plan as it applies to regional haze since it is likely that either CAIR or the Transport Rule will be in effect in the future.

Response 11: Today, EPA is finalizing action on a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP that results in an approval of the entire regional haze submission and all of its elements, preserving the visibility benefits offered by the SIP. EPA has the authority to issue a limited approval and believes that it is appropriate and necessary to promulgate a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited disapproval for Alabama's regional haze SIP and explained that EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for emissions reduction measures for the reasons discussed in that action. Comments on the disapproval are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA finalized the limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze SIP in a final action published June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).

Comment 12: The Commenter expressed concern with EPA's proposed approach of adopting FIPs at the time of disapproval to replace reliance on CAIR in the regional haze SIPs with reliance on the Transport Rule. The Commenter believes that states should be given every opportunity provided by the Act to make revisions to correct SIP deficiencies before EPA acts by imposing a FIP.

Response 12: As discussed in the response to Comment 11, today's action addresses the limited approval, and EPA finalized a limited disapproval in a separate action published on June 7, 2012. In that same action, EPA did not finalize a FIP for Alabama. EPA's response to comments on the final disapproval can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov .

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Today, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. This limited approval results in approval of Alabama's entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is taking this approach because Alabama's SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the State and having federal approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being included in its SIP.

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the Alabama SIP submitted by the State of Alabama on July 15, 2008, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. Also in this action, EPA is rescinding the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were approved into the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and approving the provisions in Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the monitoring and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 CFR 51.306.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for answers to “* * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *”. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.

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

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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

EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Public water systems are the regulated entities required to measure contaminants in drinking water samples. In addition, EPA Regions as well as States and Tribal governments with authority to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under SDWA may also measure contaminants in water samples. When EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its national primary drinking water regulations for a given contaminant, the Agency also establishes in the regulations standardized test procedures for analysis of the contaminant. This action makes alternative testing methods available for particular drinking water contaminants beyond the testing methods currently established in the regulations. EPA is providing public water systems required to test water samples with a choice of using either a test procedure already established in the existing regulations or an alternative test procedure that has been approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected by this action include:

This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be impacted. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.2 (definition of public water system). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Docket. EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0288. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Copyrighted materials are available only in hard copy. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

In this action, EPA is approving 10 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in samples collected under SDWA. Regulated parties required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other previously expedited methods in Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141 and on EPA's drinking water methods Web site at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_expedited.cfm.

When EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (i.e., as effective as a method that has already been promulgated in the regulations), SDWA allows EPA to approve the use of the alternative method through publication in the Federal Register . (See Section 1401(1) of SDWA.) EPA is using this streamlined approval authority to make 10 additional methods available for determining contaminant concentrations in samples collected under the SDWA. EPA has determined that, for each contaminant or group of contaminants listed in Section III, the additional testing methods being approved in this action are as effective as one or more of the testing methods already approved in the regulations for those contaminants. Section 1401(1) of SDWA states that the newly approved methods “shall be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing procedures listed in the regulation.” Accordingly, this action makes these additional 10 analytical methods legally available as options for meeting EPA's monitoring requirements.

This action does not add regulatory language, but does, for informational purposes, update an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR Part 141 that lists all methods approved under Section 1401(1) of SDWA. Accordingly, while this action is not a rule, it is updating CFR text and therefore is being published in the “Final Rules” section of the Federal Register .

EPA is approving 10 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. By means of this notice, these 10 methods are added to Appendix A to Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 141.

1. EPA Method 536 (USEPA 2007) is a direct injection liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for the determination of atrazine and simazine, which are regulated in drinking water as specified at 40 CFR 141.61(c). The analytes are separated and identified by comparing the retention times and acquired mass spectra to the retention times and reference spectra for calibration standards acquired under identical LC-MS/MS conditions. The concentration of each analyte is determined by internal standard calibration using procedural standards. EPA Method 536 simplifies sample preparation because it does not require labor- intensive clean-up or pre-concentration using solid phase extraction. It also provides laboratories with the opportunity to use liquid chromatography for the analytical separation instead of gas chromatography, which is used in the approved methods for the determination of atrazine and simazine.

The currently approved methods for monitoring atrazine and simazine in drinking water are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(e)(1). EPA Method 525.2, Revision 2.0 (USEPA 1995) is the only approved method that employs mass spectrometry for detection of atrazine and simazine. Therefore, the method performance characteristics of EPA Method 536 were compared to the characteristics of EPA Method 525.2, Revision 2.0 for both atrazine and simazine. EPA has found that EPA Method 536 is equally effective for measuring atrazine and simazine concentrations in drinking water, relative to the approved method. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2012a). Therefore, EPA is approving EPA Method 536 for determining atrazine and simazine in drinking water.

A copy of EPA Method 536 can be accessed and downloaded directly on-line at http://water.epa.gov/drink.

2. EPA Method 523 (USEPA 2011) is a gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method for the determination of atrazine and simazine, which are regulated in drinking water as specified at 40 CFR 141.61(c). The method analytes are extracted and concentrated from the water sample using solid phase extraction. Extracts are injected onto a capillary GC column and analyzed with a mass spectrometer. The method analytes are identified by comparing retention times and the acquired mass spectra to retention times and reference spectra for calibration standards acquired under identical GC/MS conditions. The concentration of each analyte is determined using the internal standard technique.

As discussed with EPA Method 536, EPA Method 523 can be used for the determination of atrazine and simazine in finished drinking water. EPA Method 523 and the approved EPA Method 525.2, Revision 2.0 (USEPA 1995) are both GC/MS methods; however, one of the advantages that EPA Method 523 offers relative to the approved method is the use of solid reagents, ammonium acetate and 2-chloroacetamide, for sample preservation instead of hydrochloric acid. This allows sample bottles to be prepared in the laboratory prior to shipment to the field, thus eliminating the need to ship a hazardous liquid acid. The method performance characteristics of EPA Method 523 were compared to the characteristics of the approved EPA Method 525.2, Revision 2.0 for atrazine and simazine. EPA has found that EPA Method 523 is equally effective for measuring atrazine and simazine concentrations, relative to the approved method. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2012a). Therefore, EPA is approving EPA Method 523 for determining atrazine and simazine in drinking water.

A copy of EPA Method 523 can be accessed and downloaded directly on-line at http://water.epa.gov/drink.

3. EPA Method 525.3 (USEPA 2012) is a GC/MS method for the determination of semivolatile organic compounds in finished drinking water. The method analytes are extracted and concentrated from the water sample using solid phase extraction. Extracts are injected onto a capillary GC column and analyzed using mass spectrometry. The analytes are identified by comparing retention times and the acquired mass spectra to retention times and reference spectra for calibration standards acquired under identical GC/MS conditions. The concentration of each analyte is determined using the internal standard technique.

EPA Method 525.3 is a revision of EPA Method 525.2, Revision 2.0 (USEPA 1995) which is currently approved at 40 CFR 141.24(e)(1) for analysis of drinking water compliance samples for 17 semivolatile organic contaminants: Alachlor, atrazine, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzo[a]pyrene, chlordane, di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, endrin, lindane (HCH-γ), heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD), methoxychlor, pentachlorophenol, simazine, and toxaphene. It should be noted that for PCBs, the approved method can only be used as a screen; compliance with the PCB maximum contaminant level (MCL) is based on quantitative analysis using EPA Method 508A (USEPA 1989) as specified at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(13)(iii). Likewise, EPA Method 525.3 can only be used for PCBs as a screen. Some of the advantages afforded by the revised method include:

• Use of solid preservation reagents (ascorbic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and potassium dihydrogen citrate), which eliminates the requirement to ship liquid hydrochloric acid to the field;

• Incorporation of flexibility that allows analysts to take advantage of multiple types of solid phase extraction media and GC/MS instrumentation options to improve method sensitivity and data quality; and

• Improved guidance for handling the data reduction associated with multi-component contaminants such as toxaphene, chlordane, and PCBs.

A copy of EPA Method 525.3 can be accessed and downloaded directly on-line at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

4. EPA Method 1623.1 (USEPA 2012) is a microbiological method for the detection of the water-borne parasite, Cryptosporidium (CAS Registry Number 137259-50-8), in drinking water treatment plant source waters by concentration, immunomagnetic separation (IMS), and immunofluorescence assay microscopy. Cryptosporidium is characterized using 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining and differential interference contrast (DIC) microscopy. Cryptosporidium concentrations are reported as oocysts/L.

EPA Method 1623.1 is a revision of EPA Method 1623 (USEPA 2005), which is approved at 40 CFR 141.704(a) for the detection of Cryptosporidium in water. The primary change in EPA Method 1623.1 relative to the approved method is the addition of sodium hexametaphosphate (NaHMP) after filtration of the water sample. Miller (2012a) describes two EPA studies that showed improved accuracy and precision for detecting the concentration of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water when NaHMP was added: (1) A single laboratory side-by-side analysis that compared samples from nine public water system sources processed by both EPA Method 1623 and EPA Method 1623.1, and showed an average Cryptosporidium recovery improvement of 18 percentage points (p = 0.0001); and (2) a multi-laboratory side-by-side analysis that resulted in an average Cryptosporidium recovery improvement of 15 percentage points with the addition of NaHMP for the three source waters that were tested (p = 0.0197). The more significant improvement in Cryptosporidium recovery during the side-by-side studies was particularly associated with samples that had low initial recovery using Method 1623.

Miller (2012b) contains the study report that details the validation of EPA Method 1623.1. Fourteen laboratories demonstrated a mean Cryptosporidium recovery from source water of 61% with an average within-laboratory relative standard deviation of 13%. The precision and recovery for EPA Method 1623.1 were compared to the precision and recovery observed in the validation study for the approved EPA Method 1623. The Cryptosporidium reagent water and source water mean percent recoveries for EPA Method 1623.1 are at least 20 percentage points higher than the recoveries cited in the validation study for EPA Method 1623. In addition, the mean relative standard deviation for Cryptosporidium measurements was lower in both matrices for the revised EPA Method 1623.1 demonstrating improved precision.

The data from the EPA Method 1623.1 validation studies were used to develop new quality control (QC) criteria for laboratory performance. For each QC criterion, the distribution of recovery was estimated using random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA). The recovery limits were estimated at the 5th percentile of the predictive distribution for each criterion. The lower limit for acceptable recovery of Cryptosporidium detected in reagent and source water increased by 22 and 19 percentage points, respectively, over EPA Method 1623 criteria. Thus, laboratories performing EPA Method 1623.1 should have more accurate detection and will be meeting more stringent QC criteria than laboratories following Method 1623.

Based on the validation results, EPA has determined that EPA Method 1623.1 is equally effective for detecting Cryptosporidium oocysts, relative to the approved method. Therefore, EPA is approving EPA Method 1623.1 for detecting Cryptosporidium in drinking water source waters. A copy of EPA Method 1623.1 can be accessed and downloaded directly on-line at http://water.epa.gov/drink.

1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods). EPA compared the most recent versions of two Standard Methods to earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR Part 141. Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are summarized in Smith (2012). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., corrections of errors, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). The revised methods are the same as the earlier approved versions with respect to the chemistry, sample handling protocols, and method performance data. The new versions are thus equally effective relative to those that are currently approved in the regulations. Therefore, EPA is approving the use of the two updated Standard Methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

The 21st edition can be obtained from the American Public Health Association (APHA), 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710. Online versions of Standard Methods are available at http://www.standardmethods.org.

2. ASTM International. EPA compared the most recent versions of three ASTM International methods (ASTM Methods D859-10, D1179-10 B, and D5673-10) to the earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR part 141. Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are summarized in Smith (2012). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., updated references, definitions, terminology, and reorganization of text). The revised methods are the same as the approved versions with respect to sample collection and handling protocols, sample preparation, analytical methodology, and method performance data, and thus, are equally effective relative to the approved methods.

An additional ASTM Method, D6239-09, was submitted for evaluation as an alternate test method to EPA Method 908.0 (USEPA 1980) for the analysis of uranium in drinking water. ASTM Method D6329-09 involves the analysis of uranium in drinking water by alpha scintillation with pulse shape discrimination. This technique offers high alpha counting efficiency since the electronic pulse shape discrimination reduces background counts associated with beta-gamma interference. ASTM Method D6239-09 incorporates selective solvent extraction to separate and concentrate uranium from drinking water samples for subsequent alpha liquid scintillation counting. With pulse shape discrimination, the method provides sufficient resolution to yield limited isotopic activity levels for uranium-238 and uranium-234 as well as total uranium activity. EPA Method 908.0, which relies on co-precipitation of uranium with iron hydroxide followed by ion exchange separation to isolate uranium, is not capable of distinguishing among the uranium radioisotopes. The approved methods for uranium are listed at 40 CFR 141.25(a). The performance characteristics of ASTM Method D6239-09 were compared to the performance characteristics of the approved method, EPA Method 908.0. Smith and Wendelken (2012b) summarizes the research and validation data associated with development of ASTM Method D6239-09. EPA has determined that ASTM Method D6239-09 is equally effective, relative to EPA Method 908.0, for the determination of total uranium activity in drinking water.

EPA is thus approving the use of the following ASTM methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

The ASTM methods are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or http://www.astm.org.

As noted in Section II, under the terms of SDWA Section 1401(1), this streamlined method approval action is not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Similarly, this action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. In addition, because this approval action is not a rule, but simply makes alternative testing methods available as options for monitoring under SDWA, EPA has concluded that other statutes and executive orders generally applicable to rulemaking do not apply to this approval action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 141 is amended as follows:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.

Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

We conclude that Louisiana's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Louisiana final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Louisiana has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Louisiana including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Louisiana subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Louisiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits and

• Take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Louisiana is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action.

The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes.

If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on February 7, 1985, (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889) effective January 29, 1990; August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958) effective August 26, 1991; November 7, 1994 (59 FR 55368) effective January 23, 1995; December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66200) effective March 8, 1995; there were technical corrections made on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), effective January 23, 1995; and another technical correction was made on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18360) effective April 11, 1995; October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53704) effective January 2, 1996; March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13777) effective June 11, 1996; December 29, 1997 (62 FR 67572) effective March 16, 1998; October 23, 1998 (63 FR 56830) effective December 22, 1998; August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46302) effective October 25, 1999; September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48099) effective November 1, 1999; February 28, 2000 (65 FR 10411) effective April 28, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 23) effective March 5, 2001; December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68526) effective February 9, 2004, June 10, 2005 (70 FR 33852) effective August 9, 2005; November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66116) effective January 12, 2007, August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45905) effective October 15, 2007, May 20, 2009 (74 FR 23645) effective July 20, 2009 and June 24, 2011(76 FR 122) effective August 23, 2011. On April 25, 2012, Louisiana applied for approval of its program revisions for RCRA Cluster XX in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).

Since 1979 through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabled the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission to conduct an effective program designed to regulate those who generate, transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the 1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted, which amended and reenacted La. R. S. 30:1051 et seq. as the Environmental Quality Act, renaming the Environmental Affairs Act (Act 1938 of 1979). This Act created Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), including provisions for new offices within this new Department of Environmental Quality. Act 97 also transferred the duties and responsibilities previously delegated to the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs, to the new Department. The LDEQ has lead agency jurisdictional authority for administering the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C program in Louisiana. Also, the LDEQ is designated to facilitate communication between the EPA and the State. During the 1999 Regular Session of Louisiana Legislature, Act 303 revised the La.R.S.30:2011 et. seq. allowing LDEQ to reengineer the Department to perform more efficiently and to meet its strategic goals.

It is the intention of the State, through this application, to demonstrate its equivalence and consistency with the Federal statutory tests, which are outlined in the United States Environmental Protection Agency regulatory requirements under 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart A, for final authorization. The submittal of this application is in keeping with the spirit and intent of RCRA, which provides equivalent States the opportunity to apply for final authorization to operate all aspects of their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal government. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act authorizes the State's program, Subtitle II of Title 30 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. With this application Louisiana is applying for authorization for specific areas of the State regulations identified as requiring authorization and the listed Checklists are: 222, 223 and 224 will allow the State to implement the equivalent RCRA Subtitle C portion of the program. Louisiana has demonstrated to EPA that its program was substantially equivalent in its management of hazardous waste to the Federal program developed pursuant to RCRA. The State's program is equivalent to the Federal program as outlined in revision Checklists 222, 223 and 224 which was adopted and became effective on March 20, 2012. EPA did not authorized The State of Louisiana for portions of the provisions of the Standardized Permits because the State did not adopt the federal regulations.

On April 25, 2012, Louisiana submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Louisiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant the State of Louisiana Final authorization for the following changes: The State of Louisiana's program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern RCRA Cluster XX as documented in this Federal Register :

Background

Part 54 rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The purpose of the part 54 rules is to implement section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 254. This action corrects the final regulation implemented at §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410, 54.412, 54.416, 54.417, 54.420, and 54.422, of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 54.407, 54.409, 54.410, 54.412, 54.416, 54.417, 54.420, and 54.422.

The March 2, 2012, Federal Register Summary (77 FR 12952) contains errors in certain final rules. This document corrects those errors.

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 54 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: