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 published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47568). That NPRM proposed to require replacement of the incorrect gauge wiring with the correct wiring required by type design and the aircraft's circuit protection.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 47568, August 9, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.

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 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.

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

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 published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47570). That NPRM proposed to require replacing incorrect gauge wires in certain electrical power wiring bundles, inspecting associated wiring bundles and components for heat damage, and taking all necessary corrective actions.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 47570, August 9, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 47570, August 9, 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 47570, August 9, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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 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.

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

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 published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2011 (76 FR 34918). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Continental Airlines (Continental) stated it agrees with the intent of the proposed rule (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011).

Delta Airlines (Delta), American Airlines (American), and Continental requested that we incorporate Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011, into the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). American justified its request by stating this information notice addresses information critical to the correct application of sealant, and, if this information notice is not incorporated by reference in the AD, the modification addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, will be incomplete and incorrect. Continental justified its request by stating this information notice corrects and clarifies certain instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. Air New Zealand requested clarification of exactly where the sealant specified in steps 7 and 8 of Figures 11 and 12 is to be applied.

Boeing has requested that we allow the use of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012, includes the information contained in Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011.

We agree to incorporate the content of Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011, into this final rule. This information notice addresses information critical to the correct application of sealant to the wing ribs. We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012. We also have added paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for modifications of the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing, if those actions were accomplished before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. We have changed the subsequent paragraph designations accordingly.

UPS requested that we withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) and allow compliance with the actions in AD 2011-03-15, Amendment 39-16599 (76 FR 8615, February 15, 2011) to address the identified unsafe condition addressed in the NPRM. AD 2011-03-15 requires inspecting for correct main track downstop assembly, thread protrusion, damaged and missing parts of the main track downstop assemblies of the outboard slats for foreign objects, debris, and damage to the wall of the track housing of the outboard slats, and corrective actions if necessary for certain Model 767 series airplanes. UPS justified its request by stating that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0118, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2010, which is referred to in AD 2011-03-15, requires checking all the slat track stop bolts and slat track housings for debris and correcting any discrepancies found, which will correct the unsafe condition addressed by the NPRM. UPS also stated concern that the modification required by the NPRM will not address any or all fuel leaking along the leading edge of the wing for Model 767 airplanes, because Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, was written to change the drain path, but was based on a specific incident for Model 737 airplane wings. UPS stated the modification based on the single incident cannot ensure that all flammable fuel leaks on Model 767 airplanes will be addressed by the modification specified in the NPRM.

We disagree with the request to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). AD 2011-03-15, Amendment 39-16599 (76 FR 8615, February 15, 2011), was issued to address the potential of foreign object damage or slat track stop bolts coming loose in the slat track housings, which could cause a puncture in the track housing when the slat is retracted, and a consequent fuel leak. The NPRM addressed a wing leading edge drain hole that is located close to the engine nozzle such that a fuel leak from any cause, not just from a slat track housing leak, is drained directly on the engine exhaust nozzle and could cause a fuel fire. Accomplishing the actions of AD 2011-03-15 does not remove the risk caused by the drain hole that is addressed by this final rule. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

Continental and Delta requested that parts modified by accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, be identified with new part numbers. Continental justified its request by stating that the new part numbers are needed to prevent the potential of unmodifying a modified airplane in the future by purchasing and installing an unmodified wing panel on that airplane. Delta justified its request by stating that the lack of configuration control in that service bulletin leaves the entire industry at a risk for de-modification. Swapping access panels between airplanes, which is common during C-checks, could create a non-compliance situation if one airplane has been modified and the other has not.

We partially agree. We agree with the intent of this request because it prevents a situation where unmodified non-compliant parts are installed unintentionally due to a lack of configuration control. We disagree with the commenters' request for new part numbers to be assigned to all modified parts, because there are no production equivalent parts for these retrofitted parts. Therefore, we cannot use the production part numbers to identify the parts modified per Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. However, we have changed paragraph (g) of this final rule to require actions to be done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012, which includes part marking instructions for seal doors, wing panels, and ribs to identify that the part was modified per this service information.

Boeing requested paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) be changed to allow Boeing authority to approve AMOCs under the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA). Boeing justified its request by stating that it anticipates repairs will be required to panel and ribs etc., when Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, is embodied, and it would be beneficial if the Boeing ODA is authorized to approve these repairs.

We agree with the request to delegate structural AMOC approval to the Boeing ODA, because we believe that the Boeing ODA will be effective at making those findings. We have added new paragraph (i)(3) to the final rule to delegate structural AMOC approval to the Boeing ODA.

We have changed paragraph (c) of this final rule to refer to airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 361 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.

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 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.

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

On May 9, 2012, at 77 FR 27144, the Federal Register published our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Agusta Model A109S helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 22151. That NPRM proposed to require compliance with specified portions of the manufacturer's service bulletin to modify the electrical power distribution system by installing a “BATT BUS” Circuit Breaker Modification Kit, part number 109-0824-73-107, and testing for proper functioning of the electrical system. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the circuit breaker, loss of electrical power to instruments powered by the “BATT BUS” system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2009-0137, dated June 23, 2009, for the Agusta Model A109E helicopter to correct an unsafe electrical condition caused by an inadequately functioning circuit breaker that was not within design requirements. That EASA AD required installing a “BATT BUS” circuit breaker modification kit on Model A109E helicopters. Based on the unsafe condition created by this circuit breaker as described in EASA AD No. 2009-0137, the FAA issued AD 2010-20-21 (75 FR 61341, October 5, 2010; Correction published at 75 FR 65224, October 22, 2010) to require installing a “BATT BUS” circuit breaker modification kit on Model A109E helicopters in the United States. Subsequently, EASA issued AD No. 2009-0264, dated December 15, 2009, to correct the same unsafe condition on the Agusta Model A109S helicopter due to the design commonality between the electrical power distribution system of the Model A109E and A109S helicopters. The FAA is issuing this AD for the Model A109S helicopter to correct this same unsafe condition.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (77 FR 27144, May 9, 2012).

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

This AD does not reference the calendar date of June 30, 2010, which has already passed.

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 109S-35, dated December 11, 2009 (BT), which specifies modifying and testing the “BATT BUS” circuit breaker installation. EASA classified this BT as mandatory and issued AD No. 2009-0264, dated December 15, 2009, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We estimate that this AD will affect 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It will take about 8 work-hours per helicopter to install the “BATT BUS” circuit breaker modification kit at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour and required parts will cost about $471 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators to be $17,265.

According to the Agusta service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Agusta. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

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 February 22, 2012 (77 FR 10409). 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.

FedEx requested that the time for submitting reports, proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10409, February 22, 2012) as 30 days, be extended to 90 days, because it might not have immediate access to maintenance vendors' records of the completed tasks, and system-wide reporting can sometimes require longer times.

Although EASA AD 2011-0124, dated June 30, 2011, specifies a 30-day compliance time for submitting reports, we agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time for reporting because a delay will not compromise safety. We have changed paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this final rule accordingly. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.

FedEx requested that we provide specific information for submitting the reports proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10409, February 22, 2012), including an email address, to facilitate reporting.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason given, and have added that information in paragraph (j) of this final rule.

UPS requested that the AD be effective after Airbus completes certifying the improved design for the fuel pump half hood, projected to be completed in late 2012. UPS also requested an initial compliance time of 36 months (versus the 30 months proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10409, February 22, 2012)) to allow for purchasing and part lead time. UPS stated that these changes to the NPRM would enable a one-time through-the-fleet solution without the need for repetitive inspections.

We do not agree with the commenter's request for extending the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's and EASA's recommendations for an appropriate compliance time, and the availability of required parts. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Further, we do not agree with the request for delaying the AD. For continued operational safety, operators need to begin the inspections, and not delay the inspections until the part is certified. We will consider an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) when parts are available. Operators may request approval of an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (k)(1) of this final rule, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We have determined that Model A300 B2-1A and A300 B4-601 airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the Applicability of the NPRM (77 FR 10409, February 22, 2012). We have added those models to the Applicability of this AD in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) respectively. However, none of the airplanes added to the Applicability of this AD are on the U.S. Register. Therefore, additional notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

We have revised the heading and wording for paragraph (i) of this AD to provide appropriate credit for previous accomplishment of certain actions. This change does not affect the intent of that paragraph.

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, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10409, February 22, 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 10409, February 22, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 221 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take up to 12 work-hours 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 $225,420, or $1,020 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain parts required for the on-condition actions (replacing fuel pump canister hood halves) specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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 10409, February 22, 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:

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, dated January 13, 2011.

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, dated January 13, 2011.

(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, dated January 13, 2011.

Submit reports of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to Airbus at the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, using the form “Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet” provided in the service bulletin identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Submit information to Airbus, SDC32 Technical Data and Documentation Services, fax (+33) 5 61 93 28 06, email sb.reporting@airbus.com, or via the operator's Resident Customer Support Office.

(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.

(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov . Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-0124, dated June 30, 2011; and the Airbus mandatory service bulletins identified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD; for related information.

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011.

(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com .

(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

(5) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41934). The original NPRM (73 FR 32245, June 6, 2008) proposed to require performing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. The SNPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received from a single commenter: Boeing concurs with the content of the SNPRM (77 FR 41934, July 17, 2012).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD will affect 1,080 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional terminating action specified in this AD.

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

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

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 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.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2012-0144-E, dated August 1, 2012 (EAD 2012-0144-E), to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC225 LP helicopters, delivered before August 1, 2012, with an epicyclic module part number (P/N) 332A32-5021-00 or P/N 332A32-5021-01 installed. EASA advises that the main rotor transmission incorporates a metal chip detection system to detect possible metal deterioration inside the assembly. EASA states the tapered housing of the epicyclic module is fitted with a magnetic plug, located downstream of the integrated collector, designed to detect possible deterioration of the lift bearing by attracting any metallic particles or chips suspended in the oil flow. According to EASA, it was reported that the hole joining the integrated collector and the magnetic plug was not a through hole, which prevented oil flow to the magnetic plug. This condition resulted in a functional loss of the magnetic plug to detect any particles or chips which may have been shed by the lift bearing. Because the root cause of the missing through-hole has not been identified, and is still under investigation, it cannot be determined if this unsafe condition is limited to one helicopter. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the main rotor transmission and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To address this condition, EAD 2012-0144-E requires inspecting for the presence of a through hole between the integrated collector and the magnetic plug in the epicyclic module. If the through hole is missing, EAD 2012-0144-E requires repetitive inspections of the two rotor revolution (NR) sensors for the presence of any particles.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Eurocopter has published Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 63A011, Revision 0, dated August 1, 2012, for Model EC225 helicopters. The EASB describes procedures to inspect the epicyclic module chip detection system for the presence of a through-hole in the tapered housing. The EASB also describes procedures for a repetitive inspection for any chips on the two NR sensors if the through-hole is not present.

EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued EAD 2012-0144-E to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

This AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the epicyclic module for a through-hole above the magnetic plug. If the hole is not a through-hole, this AD requires replacing the epicyclic module before further flight.

If there is not a through-hole in the epicyclic module, the EASA AD requires a repetitive inspection for any chips on the two NR sensors, while this AD requires replacing the epicyclic module.

We estimate that this AD will affect 3 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the epicyclic module will require .5 work-hour, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a cost of $43 per helicopter, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $129. If required, replacing the epicyclic module will require 10 work-hours, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, and required parts will cost $554,204, for a total cost per helicopter of $555,054.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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, I certify that this AD:

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);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

On March 29, 2012, at 77 FR 18963, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to MDHI Model MD900 helicopters. That NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD to require the same inspections as the existing AD but also require recurring inspections and replacing the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack in the lower hub and prevent failure of the lower hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated January 14, 2011 (SB). The SB specifies an initial 100-hour and recurring 300-hour visual and eddy current inspections of the lower hub for a crack and, if a crack exists, replacement of the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub. The SB requires the inspections at the stated intervals or during the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. The SB also specifies replacing the lower hub within three years.

We estimate that this AD will affect 12 helicopters of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

• Visually inspecting the hub. We estimate that will take one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.

• Eddy current inspecting the lower hub. We estimate that will take one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.

• Replacing the lower hub. We estimate that will take 11 work-hours at $85 an hour for a total labor cost of $935, and that parts will cost $12,480 per hub, for a total cost of $13,415 per helicopter and a total cost of $160,980 for the fleet.

• The costs for U.S. operators will total $163,020, assuming that the lower hubs for the entire fleet get replaced.

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.

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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We issued a supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2005-07-20, Amendment 39-14045 (70 FR 17603, April 7, 2005). That AD applied to the specified products. That SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 31758). The original NPRM (75 FR 57885, September 23, 2010) proposed to require inspecting for part numbers of the OPS of the FCCs, and doing corrective actions if necessary. The SNPRM contained the same requirements as the original NPRM, but also proposed to supersede an existing AD to require new software.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing supports the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012).

Europe Airpost and Southwest Airlines requested that we revise the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) to include Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in the SNPRM.

Europe Airpost explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, takes into account the latest version (and later versions) of the OPS part number (P/N) 2274-COL-AC1-07 (P6.0 version number) and OPS software of the FCC.

Southwest Airlines explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, requires installation of FCC software P/N 2274-COL-AC1-07, and that its latest Model 737-800 deliveries have FCC software P/N 2274-COL-AC1-07 installed. Southwest Airlines stated that it has begun installing this version of the FCC software into all its airplanes, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012. Southwest Airlines also reasoned that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, has already been approved as an AMOC for AD 2005-07-20, Amendment 39-14045 (70 FR 17603, April 7, 2005).

We agree with the commenters' requests. We agree to allow use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, for the installation actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2) of this AD, although the compliance time for this final rule remains the same as proposed: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD. We have reformatted and revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this final rule accordingly.

Paragraph (h)(1) of the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) specified installation of certain software that is “fully interchangeable” with the software specified in table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010. Southwest Airlines requested that we revise the SNPRM by removing the phrase “fully interchangeable” from paragraph (h)(1) of the SNPRM and allowing, as acceptable in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the SNPRM, “subsequent software versions that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) after April 13, 2010.” Southwest Airlines explained that Section 2.C.2., Note (b), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, which says, “Do not install previous versions of this software after installation of the new software part number,” could be conflicting with the phrase “fully interchangeable.”

We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that previous versions of the software may not be reinstalled after installation of the version specified in this service information because some previous versions contain unsafe conditions. The SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) only allowed installation of software approved after April 13, 2010, by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA. However, for clarity, we have removed the phrase “fully interchangeable” from this final rule.

Although we agree with the intent of the commenter's other suggested changes, we disagree with the proposed wording and find that further clarification is necessary. We have removed the reference to installing later-approved software in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, because that service bulletin only specifies to install FCC OPS software P/N 2276-COL-AC1-05 or P/N 2275-COL-AC1-06. Also, as stated previously, FCC OPS software P/N 2274-COL-AC1-07 may be installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224, dated May 18, 2012.

Therefore, in this final rule, the April 13, 2010, date for later-approved software has been changed to May 18, 2012, to remove redundancy and confusion. We have also added the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and the Manager, Boeing Aviation Safety Oversight Office (BASOO), FAA, as additional approval authorities for later software versions. We have revised paragraph (h) of the final rule and added a new paragraph (i) to the final rule to reflect these changes.

We have removed the “Note 1” designation from Note 1 of the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) and we have included that text in paragraph (c) of this AD.

We have added new paragraph (j)(3) to this AD to allow delegation of repair to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA. We have revised subsequent designated paragraph identifiers as appropriate.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously - and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 31758, May 30, 2012).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 207 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary installations that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this installation:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.

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 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.

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

On July 24, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at L M Clayton Airport, Wolf Point, MT (77 FR 43183). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 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 modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at L M Clayton Airport, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing NDB 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 modifies controlled airspace at L M Clayton Airport, Wolf Point, 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:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions during September 2012, as listed in table 1. With respect to these actions, FDA is also informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents through the Center for Veterinary Medicine's FOIA Electronic Reading Room. FOI Summaries may be found listed by application number at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/FOIADrugSummaries/default.htm . Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Finding Of No Serious Impacts (FONSIs) may be found listed by the established name of the active pharmaceutical ingredient at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/EnvironmentalAssessments/ucm300656.htm .

Also, Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., P.O. Box 2006, 60 Baylis Rd., Melville, NY 11747, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 065-015 for VETROPOLYCIN HC (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, neomycin sulfate, and hydrocortisone) Ophthalmic Ointment, NADA 065-016 for VETROPOLYCIN (bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate, and polymyxin B sulfate) Ophthalmic Ointment, NADA 065-460 for VETROCLORICIN (chloramphenicol) Ophthalmic Ointment, and ANADA 200-273 for VETRO-GEN (gentamicin sulfate) Ophthalmic Ointment to Dechra Ltd., Dechra House, Jamage Industrial Estate, Talke Pits, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST7 1XW, United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR part 524 to reflect these changes.

In addition, UDL Laboratories, Inc., 12720 Dairy Ashford Rd., Sugar Land, TX 77478, has informed FDA that it has changed its name to Mylan Institutional, Inc., and ECO LLC, 8209 Hollister Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89131 has informed FDA of a change of address to 344 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08540. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect these changes.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 522, 524, 529, and 558 are amended 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. Although the Coast Guard has known about the relocation of the Schoonmaker for several weeks, only recently did the Coast Guard become aware of an expected high volume of spectator vessel traffic. Consequently, the need for this safety zone was not identified until there was insufficient time to allow a full comment period to run. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run prior to enforcing this safety zone would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the heightened spectator activity associated with the relocation of the Schoonmaker.

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 above about not publishing an NPRM, the Coast Guard finds that waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The Great Lakes Historical Society (GLHS) is relocating the Schoonmaker from International Park to Skyway Marina. This relocation is scheduled for October 27, 2012. If the relocation of the vessel on October 27 is cancelled for any reason, this safety zone will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012. Likewise, if relocation on October 28th is cancelled, this safety zone will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on November 3, 2012. In light of the expected volume of spectator activity, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this operation could pose certain public hazards, such as the increased risk of collisions.

With aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and vessels during the operation. The temporary safety zone established herein will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on October 27, 2012. If the relocation of the vessel on October 27 is cancelled for any reason, this safety zone will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012. Likewise, if relocation on October 28 is cancelled, this safety zone will be effective and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on November 3, 2012.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons and vessels allowed to enter the safety zone shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, designated on scene patrol personnel, or operation personnel.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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 these 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 temporary safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the temporary safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the temporary 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 temporary safety zone.

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 may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the Maumee River, OH between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on October 27 or 28 or November 3, 2012.

This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only approximately six hours. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

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 this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in 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 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 published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule on September 13, 2012 (77 FR 56587). We received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to Marine Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge maintenance on the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina. The contract provides for replacing the fender system to commence on September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The contractor has been granted an extension by North Carolina Department of Transportation until February 14, 2013 to complete the bridge maintenance. The contractor will utilize a 140 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment staging. A safety zone is needed to provide a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction of horizontal clearance.

We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina (33°55′18″ N/078°04′22″ W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor at the NC 133 Fixed Bridge while the safety zone is in effect. This initial zone (published July 30, 2012, at 77 FR 35906) is in effect from 8 a.m. September 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 2012. The extension will be in effect from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.

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 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 received no 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 rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination 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 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) for this rule because to do so would be impracticable since the event will have taken place by the time the notice could be published and comments taken. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland, OR received information regarding this event September 14, 2012, more than 5,000 people are anticipating this event to commence as scheduled, and rescheduling is not an option.

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 reasons described above. Allowing 30 days for the rule to take effect would be impracticable.

The Captain of the Port has been delegated the authority to establish safety zones for safety or environmental purposes in 33 CFR 160.5.

A fireworks display creates hazardous conditions for vessels in the area and the people onboard those vessels due to loud noises, falling debris, and explosions, as well as potential heavy vessel traffic congregating near the display.

To protect mariners and spectators from the hazards described above, a safety zone is needed to help improve the safety of the maritime public in the area during the fireworks display by prohibiting persons and vessels from entering areas where the risks associated with the fireworks display are present.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone. The safety zone will be established on the Willamette River from shore to shore between the Steele Bridge and the Burnside Bridge, and will be enforced during the Leukemia & Lymphoma Light the Night Walk fireworks display from 6:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) to 7:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) on October 27, 2012. All persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering the safety zone during this time unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard has made this determination because the safety zone created by this rule will not significantly affect the maritime public as vessels may still transit the zone with prior authorization from the Coast Guard.

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 term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would 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 Willamette River from 6:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) to 7:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) on October 27, 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 1 hour in the evening. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before the activation of the zone, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Mail Manual was issued on June 24, 2012, and was updated with postal bulletin revisions through June 14, 2012. It replaced all previous editions. The IMM continues to enable the Postal Service to fulfill its long-standing mission of providing affordable, universal mail service. It continues to: (1) Increase the user's ability to find information; (2) increase the users' confidence that they have found the information they need; and (3) reduce the need to consult multiple sources to locate necessary information. The provisions throughout this issue support the standards and mail preparation changes implemented since the version of April 17, 2011. The International Mail Manual is available to the public on the Postal Explorer® Internet site at http://pe.usps.com .

In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as follows:

New prices are available under Docket Number CP2013-3 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov .

This final rule describes the international price and classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Services:

• Global Express Guaranteed® (GXG®).

• Express Mail International®.

• Priority Mail International®.

• First-Class Package International Service TM .

• International Priority Airmail TM (IPA®).

• International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®).

• Direct Sacks of Printed Matter to One Addressee (M-bags).

• International Extra Services:

○ Certificate of Mailing.

○ Registered Mail TM Service.

○ Return Receipt Service.

○ Pickup On Demand® Service.

• International Money Transfer Services:

○ International Postal Money Orders and Money Order Inquiry Fee.

○ Sure Money® (DineroSeguro®).

New prices are located on the Postal Explorer® Web site at http://pe.usps.com .

Global Express Guaranteed (GXG) is an international expedited delivery service provided through an alliance with FedEx Express®. The price increase for GXG service averages 9.6 percent. The Commercial Base TM price and Commercial Plus TM price for customers that prepare and pay for GXG shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com®, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage® vendor will remain a variable discount (based on the item's weight and price group) of up to 12 percent below the retail price for Commercial Base price and up to 17 percent below the retail price for Commercial Plus price. The price for GXG insurance is unchanged. Finally, customers tendering at least $100,000 in revenue per year for not only GXG, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, but also First-Class Package International Service may request authorization for commercial plus discounts.

Express Mail International service provides reliable, high-speed service to approximately 190 countries with a money-back, date-certain delivery guarantee to select destinations. The price increase for Express Mail International service averages 13.2 percent. The Commercial Base price and Commercial Plus price for customers that prepare and pay for Express Mail International shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor will remain a variable discount (based on the item's weight and price group) of up to 10 percent below the retail price for Commercial Base price and up to 16 percent below the retail price for Commercial Plus price. Customers tendering at least $100,000 in revenue per year for not only GXG, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, but also First-Class Package International Service may request authorization for commercial plus discounts.

In addition, the following product features and classification changes are made:

To provide additional value, we are increasing the limit for the included merchandise insurance for Express Mail International shipments from $100 to $200. Merchandise insurance insures against loss, damage, or missing contents. The document reconstruction insurance limit remains at $100. Finally, the price for Express Mail International merchandise insurance for items over $200 is unchanged.

For consistency, we are updating the IMM to reflect a 4-pound maximum weight limit for all Express Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes to match the Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelopes. Previously the weight limit was 20 pounds.

Priority Mail International (PMI) offers economical prices for reliable delivery of documents and merchandise. The price increase for Priority Mail International service averages 15.1 percent. The Commercial Base price and Commercial Plus price for customers that prepare and pay for Priority Mail International items via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor will remain a variable discount (based on the item's weight and price group) of up to 9 percent below the retail price for Commercial Base price and up to 14 percent below the retail price for Commercial Plus price. The price for Priority Mail International insurance is unchanged. Finally, customers tendering at least $100,000 in revenue per year for not only GXG, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, but also First-Class Package International Service may request authorization for Commercial Plus discounts.

The Postal Service is introducing Electronic USPS® Delivery Confirmation International for the Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes. Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International is optionally provided to select destinations at no charge and is only available electronically by using USPS-approved PC Postage vendors, Click-N-Ship®, Click-N-Ship for Business TM , Webtools, and Global Shipping Software (GSS). Tracking information includes the date and time an article was delivered and, if delivery was attempted but not successful, the date and time of the delivery attempt. It is designed to improve customer service and strengthen the business-to-customer commerce channel. The sender can check delivery status by going to USPS.com and clicking on the “track and confirm” feature. Although the initial offering will be limited to Canada, we are anticipating adding additional countries in the spring of 2013.

The Postal Service successfully filed a petition to transfer our existing First-Class Mail International packages (small packets) and rolls from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list. The rebranded competitive product will be identified as First-Class Package International Service TM . With this change and similar to our other competitive international mailing offerings, there will be 3 price tiers—the retail price, Commercial Base price, and the Commercial Plus price. To qualify for Commercial Plus pricing, customers must commit to tender $100,000 per year of Global Express Guaranteed, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, or First-Class Package International Service items.

The Commercial Base price and Commercial Plus price for customers that prepare and pay for First-Class Package International Service shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor will receive a variable discount (based on the item's weight and price group) of up to 10 percent below the retail price for Commercial Base price and up to 15 percent below the retail price for Commercial Plus price. The same mailing requirements that applied to First-Class Mail International packages will apply to First-Class Package International Service. For example, the price groups remain the same, the value of the item may not exceed $400, the item may not exceed 4 pounds, and the item always requires customs declaration, PS Form 2976, Customs Declaration CN 22—Sender's Declaration . Finally, updates are made to approximately 65 IMM Individual Country Listings to include “First-Class Package International Service” where only “First-Class Mail International” is referenced before this change.

The Postal Service is introducing Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International for First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets). Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International is optionally provided at no charge to select destinations and is only available electronically by using USPS-approved PC Postage vendors, Click-N-Ship®, Click-N-Ship for Business TM , Webtools, and Global Shipping Software (GSS). Tracking information includes the date and time an article was delivered and, if delivery was attempted but not successful, the date and time of the delivery attempt. It is designed to improve customer service and strengthen the business-to-customer commerce channel. The sender can check delivery status by going to USPS.com and clicking on the “track and confirm” feature. Although the initial offering will be limited to Canada, we are anticipating adding additional countries in the spring of 2013.

International Priority Airmail (IPA) service, including IPA M-bags, is a commercial service designed for business mailers for volume mailings of First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats), and First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets) weighing up to 4 pounds. The overall price increase for IPA service averages 1.9 percent.

International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) service, including ISAL M-Bags, is a commercial service, which provides dispatch and transportation for mailers of volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats), and First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets) weighing up to 4 pounds. The overall price increase for ISAL service averages 4.4 percent.

Airmail M-bags are direct sacks of printed matter sent to a single foreign addressee at a single address. The price increase for Airmail M-bags averages 7.3 percent.

Depending on country destination and mail type, customers may add a variety of extra services to their outbound shipments. While several extra services have had modest increases, due to the elimination of the $0.85 fee for Express Mail International Insurance for the $100.01 to $200 limit, the overall increase for competitive extra services averages zero percent.

For our competitive offerings, we revised the prices for the following international extra services:

To provide additional value, we are increasing the limit for the included merchandise insurance for Express Mail International shipments from $100 to $200. The price for Express Mail International merchandise insurance for items over $200 is unchanged.

Most of the prices for certificate of mailing service will increase. In addition, the Postal Service is adding the flexibility for mailers who pay for postage with a permit imprint, to now pay the fee using the same permit imprint account. Previously, the only option to pay the fee was for mailers to apply ordinary stamps, meter stamps, or PC Postage to PS Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail, or Form 3606, Certificate of Bulk Mailing.

The price for Registered Mail will increase.

The price for Return Receipt will increase.

Currently, restricted delivery is only available on the Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes using Registered Mail service. Due to low quantity demand by customers, the Postal Service will discontinue outbound international restricted delivery service effective January 27, 2013.

The price for International Money Transfer Services (includes International Postal Money Orders and Money Order Inquiry Fee, and Sure Money (DineroSeguro), will increase.

The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 20 is amended as follows:

Information is organized as follows:

On April 18, 2011, ND DOH submitted a request to EPA to approve revisions to the state's SIP and Title V program to incorporate recent rule amendments adopted by the ND DOH DAQ. These adopted rules became effective in the North Dakota Administrative Code on that date. Among other things, the amendments establish thresholds for GHG emissions in North Dakota's PSD and Title V regulations at the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-frames as those specified by EPA in the “PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Final Rule” (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), hereinafter referred to as the “Tailoring Rule,” ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The requested revisions to the SIP will clarify the applicable thresholds in the North Dakota SIP and incorporate state rule changes adopted at the state level into the federally-approved SIP.

The revisions to the SIP also address requirements for PSD programs with regard to emissions of PM 2.5 . These requirements were specified by EPA in the rule, “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers PM 2.5 (PM 2.5 )” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), hereinafter referred to as the “PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule.” On July 13, 2012, EPA proposed approval of North Dakota's April 18, 2011 SIP submittal for incorporation into the SIP (77 FR 41343). We did not propose approval of ND's Title V operating permit program revision, which is handled separately because the Title V program is not part of the SIP. In today's notice, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the SIP revisions into the North Dakota SIP.

North Dakota also submitted revisions to the General Provisions (Section 33-15-01-04), Ambient Air Quality Standards (Sections 33-15-02-04.1 and 33-15-02-07, and Tables 1 and 2), and Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to Construct, Minor Source Permit to Operate, Title V Permit to Operate (Sections 33-15-14-01.9, 10, 12 and 15, 33-15-14-02.1, 33-15-14-02.13 and 33-15-14-03.1.c). In today's final rulemaking, EPA is not taking action on those submittals; EPA will act on them in a separate rulemaking.

This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG and PM 2.5 -related actions that provide the background for today's final action. More detailed discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those actions. In particular, for GHGs the background is contained in the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 1 and in the preambles to the actions cited therein.

EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one another, establish the overall framework for today's final action on the North Dakota SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action, 2 the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,”  3 the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,”  4 and the “Tailoring Rule.” Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.

PSD is implemented through the SIP system. In December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 5 Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the “error correction” provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).

On May 16, 2008, EPA issued final rules governing the implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) program for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5 ), also known as fine particles. The PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule finalized several NSR program requirements for sources that emit PM 2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to PM 2.5 , including; pollutants that contribute to PM 2.5 that are subject to NSR regulations, major source thresholds, significant emissions rates, interpollutant offset trading, revised SIP submittal deadlines and timing of implementation of the rule. The rule requires PSD permits to address directly emitted PM 2.5 as well as pollutants responsible for secondary formation of PM 2.5 as follows:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 )—regulated as a PM 2.5 precursor

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)—regulated as a PM 2.5 precursor unless a state demonstrates that NOx emissions are not a significant contributor to the formation of PM 2.5 for an area in the state.

• Volatile organic compounds (VOC)—not regulated as a PM 2.5 precursor unless a state demonstrates that VOC emissions are a significant contributor to the formation of PM 2.5 for an area in the state.

On June 21, 2010, North Dakota provided a letter to EPA, in accordance with a request to all states from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with confirmation that the State of North Dakota has the authority to regulate GHGs in its existing SIP-approved PSD program at the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The letter also confirmed North Dakota's intent to amend its air quality rules for the PSD program for GHGs to explicitly match the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this final rulemaking for a copy of North Dakota's letter.

The rulemaking docket includes a Dec. 14, 2010 memo from EPA Region 8 that documents communications between EPA and the State of North Dakota, with regard to the question of whether the state believed that it needed the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. The state's 60-day response letter to EPA, dated June 21, 2010, stated, in part, “The Department believes it has existing authority to issue both PSD and Title V permits for sources of greenhouse gases based on the applicability thresholds specified in the tailoring rule.” Therefore, the state believed the narrowing rule was unnecessary for North Dakota. As a result, North Dakota was not subject to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.

On April 18, 2011, ND DOH DAQ submitted a revision of its regulations to EPA for processing and approval into the SIP. This SIP revision explicitly adopts the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA's approval of North Dakota's SIP revision will incorporate the revisions of the North Dakota regulations into the Federally-approved SIP. Doing so will clarify the applicable thresholds in the North Dakota SIP.

The SIP revision establishes thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under North Dakota's PSD program. Specifically, North Dakota's SIP revision includes changes—which are already state effective—to North Dakota's Administrative Code, revising chapter 33-15-15 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,” subsection 33-15-15-01.2 “Scope.”

In subsection 33-15-15-01.2, North Dakota implements the PSD program by, for the most part, incorporating by reference the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. Under the current SIP, the federal PSD program is incorporated as it existed on August 1, 2007. Under the SIP revision, the federal PSD program as it existed on July 2, 2010 is incorporated by reference. This includes revisions to the federal PSD program that were published as a final rule in the Federal Register by this date but had not yet been published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Tailoring Rule, including the necessary revisions to the federal PSD program, was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on June 3, 2010, and on July 1, 2010, the Tailoring Rule revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 were noted in the published version of the CFR. The SIP revision therefore incorporates the PSD requirements of the Tailoring Rule.

Similarly, the revision incorporates, for the most part, the PSD requirements of the PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule (promulgated May 16, 2011) as reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, with one exception. North Dakota has modified the language in the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5) regarding PM 2.5 precursor presumptions. The modification explicitly establishes that nitrogen oxides are a precursor to PM 2.5 and that volatile organic compounds are not a precursor to PM 2.5 . In other words, the State has not attempted to demonstrate that nitrogen oxides are not a significant contributor to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations or that volatile organic compounds are a significant contributor to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. This approach is consistent with the PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. Finally, as a result of the updated incorporation by reference, North Dakota has also adopted the clarified definition of “reasonable possibility” promulgated by EPA on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72607).

North Dakota removed language that had previously been added to 40 CFR 52.21(o)(1) for two reasons: To make this requirement entirely consistent with federal rules and to provide flexibility to use current methodologies recommended by Federal Land Managers. Chapter 33-15-19 is still applicable to major sources or major modifications under PSD; however, the revised PSD rules in Chapter 33-15-15 do not bind North Dakota to Chapter 33-15-19 for the visibility analysis.

North Dakota is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program, and has previously incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD into its SIP. See 72 FR 39564 (July 19, 2007). The changes to North Dakota's PSD program regulations are substantively the same as the federal provisions amended in EPA's Tailoring Rule and PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. As part of its review of North Dakota's submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of North Dakota's revision and has determined that it is consistent with the Tailoring Rule and PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule.

EPA did not receive comments on our July 13, 2012 Federal Register notice proposing approval of North Dakota's SIP revision relating to regulation of GHGs and fine particulate matter under the North Dakota PSD program.

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving North Dakota's April 18, 2011 revisions to the North Dakota SIP, relating to PSD requirements for GHG- and PM 2.5 -emitting sources. Specifically, North Dakota's SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. The final SIP revision also satisfies PSD requirements for treatment of PM 2.5 in accordance with EPA's PM 2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. As a result, EPA has determined that this SIP revision is approvable.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submissions as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS.

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone  1 and a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). 2 EPA subsequently revised the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2006. 3 Each of these actions triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or revised NAAQS.

On August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46361), EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part several SIP revisions and one proposed SIP revision submitted by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. NDEP's submittals include SIP revisions submitted to EPA on February 1, 2008 (“2008 Ozone Submittal”), February 26, 2008 (“2008 PM 2.5 Submittal”), September 15, 2009 (“2009 PM 2.5 Submittal”), and December 4, 2009 (“2009 PM 2.5 Supplement”), and a proposed SIP revision submitted on July 5, 2012. The proposed SIP revision served as a supplement to the prior four infrastructure SIP revisions and was submitted under the parallel processing mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final version of the July 5, 2012 proposed SIP revision was adopted on August 30, 2012 and submitted to EPA on the same day (“2012 Submittal”).

We are taking final action on all five submittals since they collectively address the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We refer to them collectively herein as “Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.”

The rationale supporting EPA's action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in our August 3, 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) and the three associated technical support documents (TSDs)  4 and will not be restated here. The proposed rule and TSDs are available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047.

The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on August 3, 2012, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on September 4, 2012. During this period, EPA received two comment letters: one from NDEP on September 4, 2012 (herein “NDEP's comment(s)”); and one from Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management Division (WCHD-AQMD) on September 4, 2012 (herein “Washoe County's comment(s)”). Both letters are available in the docket to today's final rule. 5

NDEP's comment letter numbers its comments 1 through 9. NDEP comment numbers 1 through 3 support various aspects of EPA's proposed rule, while numbers 4 through 9 request clarification on several points. Washoe County's comment letter generally supports EPA's proposed rule with two exceptions, which it numbers 1 and 2, and requests that EPA make a clarification on one additional point. We appreciate NDEP and Washoe County's comments in support for our proposed rule and respond to their comments regarding requested clarifications and corrections below. Note that we have grouped comments from NDEP and Washoe County that are similar in content into single comments and responses.

Comment #1:

NDEP's comment number 4 and Washoe County comment number 1 note that EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the SIP related to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit programs for NDEP and Washoe County because the programs do not completely satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs. NDEP and WCHD-AQMD also note, however, that EPA recognizes that the deficiencies related to the PSD programs are adequately addressed by the existing federal implementation plan (FIP), for which EPA has delegated enforcement authority to NDEP and Washoe County. Moreover, NDEP argues that the provisions of 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which codify the PSD FIP by incorporating EPA's PSD provisions in the Nevada SIP, make EPA's PSD FIP a part of the SIP, with the exception of the portion applicable to Clark County. As such, NDEP and WCHD-AQMD believe that the elements of the Nevada SIP related to PSD programs under their jurisdictions should be approved.

Response #1:

The CAA requires each State to adopt and submit a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. See CAA section 110(a)(1). CAA section 110(a)(2) sets forth the content requirements for such plans, including the requirement for a permit program as required in part C (“Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,” or “PSD”) of title I of the CAA. Such plans are referred to as state implementation plans or SIPs.

EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP derives from EPA's determination that a State has failed to submit a complete, required SIP submission or from EPA's disapproval of a State submission of a SIP or SIP revision. See CAA section 110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly, thus includes both portions of the plan submitted by the State and approved by EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by EPA to substitute for a State plan disapproved by EPA or not submitted by a State. See 40 CFR 52.02(b).

In 1974, EPA disapproved each state's SIP with respect to PSD and promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the SIP deficiency (“PSD FIP”). See 39 FR 42510 (December 5, 1974). In 1975, EPA codified the PSD FIP in each state's subpart in 40 CFR part 52. See 40 FR 25004 (June 12, 1975)(adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to Subpart DD—Nevada). In 1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD regulations following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and related court decisions and amended the codification of the PSD FIP in each state's subpart, including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly. See 43 FR 26380 (June 19, 1978) and 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). Since then, EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the sources and geographic area that lie within the jurisdiction of Clark County Department of Air Quality, and has delegated responsibility for conducting PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and the Washoe County District Health Department. Notwithstanding the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD for the geographic areas and stationary sources that lie within NDEP's and Washoe County District Health Department's jurisdictions. As such, EPA's disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submittals for those elements that require states to have a SIP that includes a PSD permit program, including CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K), is appropriate because EPA disapproved the State's submitted plan as not adequately addressing PSD program requirements. To conclude otherwise would be inconsistent with the long-standing and current disapproval of the SIP for PSD for the applicable areas, with the statutory foundation upon which the PSD FIP is authorized, and with the obligation under section 110(a) for each State to adopt and submit a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS that includes a PSD program. EPA's delegation of the PSD FIP is not the same as State adoption and submittal of state or district rules meeting PSD requirements and EPA's approval thereof.

Comment #2:

NDEP's comment number 6 and Washoe County comment number 2 state that NDEP and Washoe County Health District AQMD “[do] not believe that the PSD program as it relates to greenhouse gases renders this SIP deficient with respect to ozone and PM 2.5 ” and request that EPA explain why greenhouse gas (GHG) provisions are “essential to enforcing the PM 2.5 NAAQS.” Both comments refer to pages 10, 42, and 43 of EPA's Overarching TSD for EPA's proposed rule.

Response #2:

The PSD requirements for the regulation of greenhouse gases are relevant to our evaluation of SIPs submitted with respect to the ozone and PM 2.5 (or any) NAAQS because those PSD requirements apply on a source-by-source basis for all federally regulated pollutants emitted by that source that meet the PSD applicability thresholds, rather than applying on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. For example, the CAA specifies that a new source that triggers PSD because of its emissions of ozone precursors or PM 2.5 is also subject to PSD for any other federally regulated pollutant that it emits above the applicable significance levels and for GHGs, if it emits those pollutants above the thresholds established by the GHG Tailoring Rule. 6 Accordingly, for the Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS to be fully approvable, the Nevada SIP must include the appropriate PSD requirements for all other federally regulated pollutants, including GHGs. Because Nevada's Infrastructure SIPs fail to include those requirements for GHGs with respect to the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, the EPA must partially disapprove these SIP submittals. Consistent with our proposal, however, we reiterate that “[a]lthough the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the Federal PSD program.” See 77 FR 46361 at 46367.

Comment #3:

NDEP's comment number 5 states that “EPA proposes to partially disapprove the NDEP's submittal [with respect to the `good neighbor' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)], stating that it is not relevant, and to partially approve the submittal based on EPA's independent evaluation of Nevada's impact on receptor states.” NDEP stated its belief that “it would be simpler not to do a partial disapproval based on information that EPA deemed immaterial to its decision-making, but rather to fully approve the SIP based on EPA's own data analysis demonstrating a lack of impacts on receptor states.”

Response #3:

We disagree. EPA proposed to partially disapprove Nevada's 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement with respect to the “good neighbor” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because the State's submission “relies on irrelevant factors and lacks any technical analysis to support the State's conclusion with respect to interstate transport.” See 77 FR 46361 at 46368. We also proposed to partially approve the submission, however, based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from Nevada do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Id. Our proposal to partially approve and partially disapprove the submission was based not on information that “EPA deemed immaterial to its decision-making,” but rather on information submitted by the State in the form of a SIP submission which we found inadequate to satisfy the applicable CAA requirements.

Specifically, as discussed in the Transport TSD for this proposal, Nevada's 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (collectively the “2009 SIP Submittals”) appear to conclude that the existing Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, among other requirements of CAA section 110(a). See Transport TSD at 1. The only support provided for this conclusion in the 2009 SIP Submittals is a reference to EPA's previous approval of Nevada's CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). See Transport TSD at 1, 2. The 2009 SIP Submittals contains no technical analysis of potential interstate transport or any other support for the State's conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See id. Moreover, Nevada submitted nothing to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in Clark County. See id. at footnote 1.

As explained in the Transport TSD, EPA does not agree with NDEP's suggestion or conclusion in the 2009 SIP Submittals that EPA's previous approval of Nevada's section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 p.m. 2.5 NAAQS could support, in any way, the conclusion that the SIP adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See id. at 2. The cited 2007 rulemaking addressed CAA requirements for different NAAQS and thus could not support a conclusion that the requirements have been met with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See id.

Given the absence of any technical demonstration in the State's submission showing that Nevada emission sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in any other state, we cannot fully approve the 2009 SIP Submittals as satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. We are, however, partially approving the 2009 SIP Submittals based on EPA's independent review of relevant technical information, which supports the State's conclusion that Nevada emission sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA therefore does not require additional controls in Nevada to prohibit such impacts.

Comment and Response #4:

NDEP comment number 8 recommends several corrections and clarifications to the text of our Transport TSD. We respond to each sub-comment following separate comment summaries below.

First, citing pages 7 and 11 of our Transport TSD, NDEP states that “EPA has characterized Idaho as more distant from Nevada than Utah, Oregon and California” but notes that Nevada and Idaho share a border.

We agree that our Transport TSD could have better characterized the location of Idaho relative to Nevada and the distance from Nevada to nonattainment receptors in Idaho relative to those in “other western states” (i.e., Washington and Montana, see pages 7 and 11 of our Transport TSD). EPA discussed the nonattainment receptor in Idaho as part of its discussion of “other western states with nonattainment receptors located farther away” because the receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho (Pinehurst), located in northern Idaho, is more distant from Nevada compared to the receptors located in Utah, Oregon, and California. But NDEP correctly notes that like Utah, Oregon, and California, Idaho shares a border with Nevada.

Second, citing page 16 of the Transport TSD, NDEP encourages EPA to expressly state that “EPA's analysis shows no significant contribution by Nevada to nonattainment in the Southern California area.”

In Section IV.B.3. of our Transport TSD (see pages 15-16), regarding nonattainment receptors in California, for four of the five areas discussed we stated that “we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Nevada sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard at these receptor locations.” We inadvertently did not make such a statement for the Southern California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino area. In response to this comment, we are clarifying our conclusion that emissions from Nevada sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard at the Southern California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino nonattainment receptor locations.

Third, citing pages 20-22 of the Transport TSD, NDEP states that “EPA reaches a conclusion that Nevada emissions do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 p.m. 2.5 NAAQS in California (Section V.B.1.) or Utah (Section V.B.3.); however, no conclusion is stated for Arizona (Section V.B.2).” NDEP believes a similar conclusion was implied and encourages EPA to state as much for Arizona.

We agree and are clarifying our conclusion that emissions from Nevada sources do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS at the Arizona maintenance receptor locations discussed in Section V.B.2 (page 21) of the Transport TSD.

Fourth, NDEP asserts that EPA's discussion on pages 20-22 of the Transport TSD “appears to talk about nonattainment areas rather than maintenance areas” while “Table III.A.1 lists Arizona as having two maintenance areas for PM 2.5 and no nonattainment areas.” NDEP perceives a discrepancy therein.

It appears NDEP has misunderstood a distinction that EPA is making between nonattainment or maintenance receptors and nonattainment or maintenance areas. Table III.A.1 lists the nonattainment and maintenance “receptors” located in western counties, which EPA selected based on the criteria discussed in Section III.A (“Discussion of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptor Selection Methodology”). These criteria for selection of nonattainment and maintenance “receptors” are not related to the criteria for designation of nonattainment areas under CAA section 107 or for approval of maintenance plans under CAA section 175A. Thus, it is possible to have maintenance “receptors” in areas that have been designated as nonattainment areas, as in Arizona and Utah.

Fifth, NDEP states that “Table III.A.1 lists Utah as having no maintenance areas, so the NDEP is uncertain why Utah is discussed in section V of this Appendix” and that “[t]he discussion of nonattainment areas in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) appears to be repeated in Section V.B.3 for maintenance receptors.” NDEP perceives a discrepancy therein.

We disagree that Table III.A.1 (“List of Western Counties with Daily PM 2.5 Nonattainment or Maintenance Receptors”, page 8) lists Utah as having no maintenance areas. The last three rows for Utah in this table include an asterisk in the Receptor Type column. The asterisk is defined below the table as follows: “This county contains both nonattainment and maintenance receptors. See Appendix A for more details.” Appendix A (“List of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors for 2006-2010”), in turn, lists all of the individual receptors that were summarized by county in Table III.A.1. There is one maintenance receptor in each of Utah and Weber counties, Utah—hence our discussion of Utah in Section V (“Transport Assessment for Maintenance Receptors”). The discussion of nonattainment receptors in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) is similar to the discussion in Section V.B.3 for maintenance receptors in Utah because the receptors are near to each other and the potential for transport from Nevada for each is similar.

Comment #5:

NDEP comment number 7 addresses EPA's statements in the Overarching TSD (pages 11-13) regarding certain provisions that are part of the Nevada SIP, but have been repealed or replaced in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). NDEP highlights that such regulations “have not been rescinded from the Nevada SIP, and EPA considers them to be federally enforceable” and suggests that a more accurate characterization would be to say that such provisions “have been repealed or replaced in the NAC, but not in the SIP.”

Response #5:

It is true that the regulations cited in pages 11-13 of our Overarching TSD having parenthetical notes about replacement or repeal can be accurately characterized as having been repealed or replaced in the NAC (i.e., at the state level), but remaining in the Nevada SIP (i.e., the set of federally enforceable provisions with respect to Nevada air quality). In part, our intent was to clarify the status of these provisions so that the public could more readily understand which provisions are in effect and to identify certain provisions that, as repealed or replaced (but not revised in the SIP), did not provide support for how Nevada meets the section 110(a)(2)(C) requirement that each SIP “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)].”

However, the broader meaning of such clarifications and identifications relates to CAA section 110(a)(1), which requires the state to adopt and submit “a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the relevant NAAQS (i.e., the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, in this case). On its face, if Nevada has repealed or replaced certain Nevada Administrative Codes, we would understand this to mean that NDEP is not in fact implementing such regulations as part of a plan to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. In other words, infrastructure SIPs are not merely a measure of what is federally enforceable under a state's SIP; they are a collection of the provisions and plans that the state actively employs to implement the NAAQS.

Our Overarching TSD discussed three provisions in particular wherein we noted that “it is not clear how Nevada intended that these regulations support the enforcement of the emission limitation regulations.” See Overarching TSD at page 13. We reiterate our statement from that same page, however, that “[n]otwithstanding these three provisions, on the basis of the statutory and regulatory provisions, which have been approved into the SIP, we find that Nevada has an adequate program for enforcement of its provisions for emission limits at the state level.”

Comment and Response #6:

NDEP comment number 9 recommends several corrections and clarifications to the text of our Overarching TSD. We respond to each sub-comment following separate comment summaries below.

First, NDEP notes that on page 6, footnote 9, the second sentence should read, “Adele Malone, Supervisor, Planning and Modeling Branch, * * * .” We thank NDEP for its clarification regarding the Branch title, which we had listed as “Air Planning Branch” in footnote 9 of the Overarching TSD.

Second, NDEP notes that on page 11 EPA listed Nevada Air Quality Regulation (NAQR) Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 as having been cited in support of CAA 110(a)(2)(C), and requests EPA to remove it from the list of submitted regulations. We agree that Articles 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 were not cited in Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(C); our inclusion of these provisions in the list of regulations with respect to 110(a)(2)(C) was an inadvertent addition.

To clarify further, Nevada's 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal each cited Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 listed for section 110(a)(2)(A). See Enclosure 1, page 1 of each of these submittals. Given that these regulations pertain to opacity emission limits for kilns and related clinker coolers, they are appropriate for purposes of addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), as referenced by these submittals and discussed in our Overarching TSD.

Third, NDEP notes a contradiction in the last sentence of the first full paragraph of page 43 regarding the PSD portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements and Clark County. We agree that this sentence contradicts our other stated conclusions regarding Clark County's PSD program and the PSD requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We hereby clarify that our intended statement, as noted in the conclusion paragraph of that same page, was that “the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP meets the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), contingent upon final approval of the proposed SIP revisions [for permitting new or modified stationary sources in Clark County].” Furthermore, based on our final approval of those Clark County SIP revisions, 7 we are finalizing our approval of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the Clark County portion of the SIP.

Fourth, NDEP believes that EPA had intended to reference NAQR Article 13.3.1.2(b) on page 45, rather than Article 13.4.1.2(b), and that the latter is not in the applicable Nevada SIP. NDEP also refers to 77 FR 14862. We referred to Article 13.4.1.2(b) with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) because it was included in Enclosure 2 of Nevada's 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 p.m. 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 p.m. 2.5 Submittal and contains requirements for diffusion models for the permitting review of new sources. However, NDEP is correct that Article 13.4.1.2(b) is not in the Nevada SIP. Rather, Article 13.3.1.2(b), which is part of the Nevada SIP and contains requirements for diffusion modeling, relates most closely to the air quality modeling requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K). See 77 FR 14682 at 14872.

Fifth, NDEP notes that Footnote 19 states that “ * * * NDEP repealed NAC 445.694 and did not submit a replacement for inclusion in the SIP.” NDEP states that this footnote was inaccurate since the authority to repeal a state regulation lies with the Nevada State Environmental Commission. We thank NDEP for its clarification. Footnote 19 of the Overarching TSD should have made clear that the State Environmental Commission is the body authorized under state law to adopt regulations to prevent, abate and control air pollution (NRS 445B.210), the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is designated as the air pollution control agency for the State of Nevada for the purposes of the CAA (NRS 445B.205), and the Administrator of NDEP is the official designee of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the purposes of the CAA, including, but not limited to, adoption, revision, and submittal of SIPs to EPA.

Comment #7:

Washoe County notes a “minor correction/clarification that should be made” in EPA's Section 128 TSD on pages 4 and 7. Washoe County identifies the District Health Officer of the Washoe County Health District, or his designee, as the Control Officer, pursuant to Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 010.042, rather than the AQMD Director, as stated in EPA's Section 128 TSD. The comment further states that the AQMD Director and Branch Chief are designees of the Control Officer and that the applicability of section 128 does not change and remains as “not applicable” because it “applies to boards and bodies composed of multiple individuals.”

Response #7:

EPA agrees that we should have identified the District Health Officer of Washoe County Health District as the Control Officer in Washoe County. Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 010.042 defines “Control Officer” as the “District Health Officer of the Washoe County Health District or the person designated by said District Health Officer to enforce these local air pollution control ordinances and regulations as approved by said District Board of Health created pursuant to the interlocal agreement of the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada.” AQR 020.020 (“Control Officer—Powers and Duties”) states that the “Control Officer, or his designated agent or representative, shall enforce the provisions of these [air pollution control] regulations.” From the context of Washoe County's comments and conversation with WCHD-AQMD staff, we understand the AQMD Director and Branch Chief to be designated agents or representatives of the Control Officer (i.e., the District Health Officer of the Washoe County Health District), pursuant to AQR 020.020.

We cited AQR 020.020 in our Section 128 TSD because it authorizes the Control Officer and his designated agents or representatives to issue corrective action orders (a kind of enforcement order). Thus, the Control Officer and his designated agents or representatives are subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2). This reflects a point of distinction with respect to Washoe County's comment that the requirements of CAA section 128 are “not applicable” to the Control Officer or his agents or representatives. While we agree that section 128(a)(1) regarding board membership requirements does not apply to individual decision-makers, such as the Control Officer, we reaffirm that the disclosure requirement of section 128(a)(2) applies both to board members and to heads of executive agencies and their delegates as is clear on the face of the statute. See page 2 of our Section 128 TSD.

As a result, we have assessed whether the Washoe County District Health Officer is covered by Nevada's statutes concerning disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. As per NRS 281A.160.1, a public officer in Nevada is defined by two criteria: (a) that the person is appointed or elected to a position established by a charter or ordinance of any county, and (b) that his or her position “[i]nvolves the exercise of a public power, trust, or duty.” The District Health Officer is a public officer under these criteria because he or she is a person appointed to a position established by the Washoe County Code and because approval of permits or enforcement orders under state or county law involves an exercise of a public power, trust or duty. 8

Our determinations regarding disclosure as it relates to the AQMD Director and Branch Chief remain unchanged. The AQMD Director is a public officer, pursuant to NRS 281A.160, and the AQMD Branch Chief of the Permitting and Compliance Branch is a public employee, pursuant to NRS 281A.150, ( see pages 8-9 of our Section 128 TSD) and they are both subject to adequate disclosure requirements under CAA section 128(a)(2), as codified at NRS 281A.410 and NRS 281A.420 ( see pages 11-13 of our Section 128 TSD).

Thus, our overall conclusion remains that the conflict of interest provisions  9 submitted in Nevada's 2012 Submittal meet the requirements of CAA section 128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are therefore finalizing our proposed approval of Nevada's conflict of interest provisions into the SIP and our proposed approval of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. In the following subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the basis for those elements that are partially approved and partially disapproved. We also describe the statutory provisions and other materials submitted by NDEP that we are approving herein, and describe the consequences of our disapprovals.

EPA is approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the following requirements:

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution.

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, public notification, and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

• Section 110(a)(2)(K) (in part): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

We are approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the Clark County portions of the SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD based upon our final approval of certain SIP revisions for the review of new or modified stationary sources for the Clark County portion of the SIP. 10

For section 110(a)(2)(C), we are approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all three jurisdictions (NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County) with respect to the requirement that the SIP include a program to provide for enforcement of the emissions limitations described in section 110(a)(2)(A).

With respect to the requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding interference with other states' required measures to protect visibility), EPA previously approved Nevada's interstate transport SIP as satisfying this requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as part of EPA's action on Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 17334 at 17339 (March 26, 2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, in today's final rule we are approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as meeting the visibility requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS by virtue of Nevada's SIP-approved Regional Haze Plan (77 FR 17334, March 26, 2012), which contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states.

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, we are approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all three subsections of section 110(a)(2)(F). We note that EPA has approved three Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) sections cited by NDEP in its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections 445B.315(3), 445B.3368, and 445B.346, in a separate rulemaking ( see the pre-publication version signed August 30, 2012 and included in the docket of today's final rule). These provisions provide additional support for the NDEP portion of the SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). For the Washoe County portion of the SIP, our approval of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is based on our approval of four Washoe County rules, AQR 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970, which were included in the 2012 Submittal, in a separate rulemaking ( see the pre-publication version signed September 14, 2012 and included in the docket of today's final rule). With respect to the Clark County portion of the SIP, we are approving the SIP for sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) based upon our final approval of certain SIP revisions for the review of new or modified stationary sources in Clark County. 11

In connection with our approval, or partial approval, of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for these requirements as listed above, we are approving into the Nevada SIP certain statutes and other materials, which were included in the 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement and the 2012 Submittal.

First, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., necessary assurances for adequate personnel, funding, and authority), EPA is approving an interlocal agreement among the Washoe County District Board of Health, Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks concerning the Washoe County District Health Department, and a comprehensive revision to Section 12 (“Resources”) of the Nevada SIP. The interlocal agreement was submitted as Attachment D of Nevada's 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement and the revision to Section 12 was submitted as Attachment A to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 12 hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP version of Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.

Second, in connection with our approval of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (i.e., State board conflict of interest requirements under CAA section 128), EPA is approving Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 232A.020, 281A.150, 281A.160, 281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as provided in Attachment B of Nevada's 2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP.

Third and last, in connection with our approval of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part) and (M), EPA is approving a comprehensive revision to Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) of the Nevada SIP, which is included as Attachment D to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 11 hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP version of Section 11, approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.

Nevada's 2012 revision to Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) cites a number of statutes. Two of these, NRS section 445B.503 and NRS section 439.390, are included as exhibits to Section 11 and are new to the SIP. 12 Another statute, NRS 445B.500, is included in Attachment B to the 2012 Submittal as an update to the former version of NRS 445B.500, which EPA had approved into the Nevada SIP (71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006). We are approving NRS 445B.503, NRS 439.390, and the updated version of NRS 445B.500 into the Nevada SIP in connection with our approval of the 2012 revision to Section 11 of the Nevada SIP. The updated version of NRS 445B.500 hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP version of NRS 445B.500 in the Nevada SIP.

EPA is disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part): Interstate pollution transport.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution.

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

• Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with government officials, public notification, and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

• Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.

As explained in our proposed rule and Overarching TSD, we are disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD because the Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act. Both NDEP and WCHD-AQMD currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485. 13 Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the Federal PSD program.

With respect to the requirements regarding interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA previously approved an interstate transport SIP submitted by Nevada as satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). For the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, in today's final rule we are partially approving and partially disapproving Nevada's 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement. We are partially disapproving the submissions because they rely on irrelevant factors and lack any technical analysis to support the State's conclusion with respect to interstate transport. We are also partially approving the submission, however, based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from Nevada do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See our 2006 PM 2.5 Transport TSD. 14

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), we are disapproving the Clark County portion of the SIP for subsection 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County has repealed its regulation, Section 24, that formerly addressed the correlation requirement of this subsection, without submitting a SIP revision to replace it.

EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously. Rather than implement a FIP, we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of the Clean Air Act, for states to implement the CAA requirements through state provisions that are developed and adopted by the state and approved into the SIP by EPA. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is consistent with the requirements of the Act in accordance with its obligations under section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role requires that it assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states across the country, even while acknowledging that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may not have identical outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path that is consistent with the Act at this time.

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals were not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our partial disapproval of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a State implementation plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period.

With respect to our partial approval and partial disapproval of Nevada's submissions related to interstate transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we conclude that any FIP obligation resulting from our final, partial disapproval is satisfied by our determination that there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct. Such disapproval also does not require any further action on Nevada's part given EPA's conclusion that the SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

With respect to our final disapproval of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County portion of the SIP, today's action establishes a deadline two years from the effective date of this action for EPA to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiency within that two-year period. 15 We encourage the state to submit a SIP revision to address the deficiencies identified in this final rule and we stand ready to work with the state to develop a revised plan.

For all other final disapprovals of today's action (i.e., for the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP), we conclude that although the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in each jurisdiction by the Federal PSD program, and therefore no further FIP obligation is triggered by today's action.

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial disapproval 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 action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves certain other 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, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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.”

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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 certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. section 804(2). This rule will be effective on November 23, 2012.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 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)).

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

EPA Region 5 is publishing this Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3, and Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1 of the Torch Lake Superfund (Site) from the NPL and requests public comments on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Torch Lake Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List (60 FR 55466) on November 1, 1995. As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective December 24, 2012 unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 23, 2012. Along with this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice for Partial Deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion, and the deletion may not take effect. Alternatively EPA may, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received. In this case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment on the agency's response.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3 and the Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1 of the Torch Lake Superfund Site and demonstrates how the deletion criteria are met at these land parcels. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete the Site parcels from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3, and the Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1 of the Torch Lake Superfund Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the State of Michigan prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register .

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the State, through MDEQ, has concurred on the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in the Daily Mining Gazette Newspaper, located in Houghton, Michigan. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL. A public meeting will be held prior to the end of the comment period to ensure the public understands the delisting process and the locations of the land parcels proposed for deletion.

(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments. EPA may continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3 and Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1 of the Torch Lake Superfund Site from the NPL. The Isle Royale Tailings area comprises approximately 64 acres of cover material northwest of U.S. 41, next to Portage Lake. It is located near the town of Houghton, in the northwestern corner of Section 5 in Portage Township, Michigan (Township 54 N Range 33 W). The Torch Lake Superfund Site Isle Royale Tailings property parcel is also referred to as Isle Royale Stamp Mill or Isle Royale Sands. It is the parcel of property on the west side of Houghton that was part of a mine rock crushing operation. The Site has no relation to the Isle Royale that is the island located in Lake Superior.

A legal description of the Isle Royale Tailings portion of the Torch Lake Superfund Site is as follows: A parcel of land in Government Lot 2, Section 5, T54N, R33W, City of Houghton, Houghton County, Michigan. Commencing at the West 1/4 corner of said Section 5; thence North 1069.47 feet; thence East 1584.79 feet to the point of beginning on the Northeasterly right-of-way of the Soo Line Railroad; thence N 33° 42′ 20″ E 229.36 feet to the South right-of-way (66-ft. R/W) of Carlos Street of the recorded plat of Royale Isle Subdivision; thence S 56° 17′40″ E 380.00 feet along said Carlos Street right-of-way and extension thereof; thence S 33° 42′ 20″ W 250.29 feet to the Northeasterly right-of-way of said Soo railroad; thence along said right-of-way on a curve to the right N 53° 08′ 19″ W 380.68 feet more or less to the point of beginning.

The Michigan Smelter Tailings parcel is located in a 15-acre, low-lying area of stamp sands east of Houghton Canal Road on the shores of Portage Lake, in Sections 28, 33, and 34 of Adams/Stanton Township, Michigan (55 N Range 34 W). There is a piece of property nearby, on the west side of Houghton Canal Road, known as Michigan Smelter that includes the buildings and abandoned materials where industrial activities took place. This property is not part of the Torch Lake Superfund Site and was not investigated or remediated as part of the Site activities. There may be high levels of arsenic or other contaminants associated with past mining activity in that area, but such contamination would not be considered as part of the Torch Lake Superfund Site.

The legal description of the Michigan Smelter Tailings portion of the Torch Lake Superfund Site is as follows—Parcel 1: Section 33, T55N, R34W, Adams Township, Houghton County, Michigan, Government Lot 1 lying North of County Road 554, except commencing at the North 1/4 corner; thence South 320 feet to P.O.B.; thence Southeasterly 90.18 feet; thence Northeasterly 569.59 feet; thence North 202.57 feet; thence Southeasterly 410.48 feet to South right of way of Canal Road; thence Southeasterly along Canal Road 888 feet more or less; thence South 676 feet to South line of Government Lot 1; thence Southwesterly 1692 feet to the West line of Government Lot 1; thence North 980.78 feet to P.O.B. Parcel 2: Section 34, T55N, R34W, Adams Township, Houghton County, Michigan, Government Lot 3 lying North of County Road 554, also West 121.90 feet of Government Lot 4 lying North of County Road 554. Parcel 3: Section 28, T55N, R34W, Stanton Township, Houghton County, Michigan, part of Government Lot 4, commencing North 00° 34′ 31″ West 35.08 feet from South 1\2 ; Corner; thence North 00° 34′ 31″ West 1252.70 feet; thence south 89° 33′ 12″ East 102.60 feet; thence South 89° 35′ 56″ East 151.39 feet to shore; thence South 46° 13′ 52″ East 804.26 feet; thence South 55° 13′ 38″ East 1279.14 ; thence West 713.78 feet; thence North 46° 48′ 32″ West 766.52 feet; thence South 43° 09′ 07″ West 66 feet; thence South 01° 45′ 30″ East 57.69 feet; thence South 08° 31′ 32″ West 141.99 feet; thence South 10° 03′ 39″ West 69.72 feet; thence South 71° 33′ 12″ West 552.04 feet to P.O.B.

The Mason Sands Tailings area is about 225 acres and is located within a fenced in area south of M-26 and expands until the land meets the lake (Torch Lake). It is adjacent to the Village of Mason and is located in Sections 23, 26, and 27 of Township 55 North, Range 33 West. Located within the Mason Sands parcel of the Site are dilapidated industrial structures, building foundations, and other debris. These abandoned structures, foundations and debris are not part of the Torch Lake Superfund Site and were not investigated or remediated. The surface tailings at this Mason area constitute the area addressed by the Torch Lake Site remedial action. The legal description of the Mason Sands portion of the Torch Lake Superfund Site is as follows. Government. Lot 2—Section 14—T.55N-R.33 W lying East of State Highway M-26 Right-of-Way, except as follows: Commencing at a point on shore of Torch Lake 500′ from meander post on line between Sections 13 & 14, thence N.55°40′ West to North boundary line of Lot 2 Section 14, thence East along North boundary of said Lot 2 to shore of Torch Lake, thence Southwesterly along said lake to Point of Beginning except Right-of-Way of C&H RR. 53.32.A. Gov't. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4—Section 23—T.55 N.-R.33 W. lying East of abandoned railroad Right-of-Way, except as follows: Part of Government Lot 4, Section 23, and Government Lot 5, Section 26, T.55N, R.33W, Osceola Township, Houghton County, Michigan, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a section corner common to Sections 22, 23, 26 and 27, T.55N, R.33W; then due South 480.66 feet to the point of beginning: thence N43° 54′ 04″ E 1164.53 feet; thence S51° 08′ 38″E 124.89 feet to a point located in the Northwesterly right-of-way line of State Highway M-26; thence S00° 02′ 18” W 112.29 feet to a point located in the Southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway M-26; thence S50° 16′ 58″ E 21.89 feet; thence S35° 39′ 41″ E 251.20 feet; thence S32° 31′ 34″ W 189.24 feet; thence N55° 59′ 01″ W 158.27 feet; thence N58° 48′ 17″ W 75.02 feet to a point located in the Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence S32° 31′ 34″ W 44.66 feet along said Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence on a curve to the right, having a radius of 2814.93 feet a long chord bearing and distance of S39° 15′ 17″ W 659.63 feet, 661.15 feet along said Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence continuing along said abandoned railroad right-of-way S45° 59′ 00″ W 458.12 feet; thence due North 468.57 feet to the point of beginning, containing 461,453 square feet, which is 10.59 acres including road right-of-ways. Government. Lot 5—Section 26—T.55N-R.33W. lying East of abandoned railroad Right-of-Way, except as follows: Part of Government Lot 4, Section 23, and Government Lot 5, Section 26, T.55N, R.33W., Osceola Township, Houghton County, Michigan, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a section corner common to Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, T.55N, R.33W.; then due South 480.66 feet to the point of beginning: thence N43° 54′ 04″ E 1164.53 feet; thence S51° 08′ 38″ E 124.89 feet to a point located in the Northwesterly right-of-way line of State Highway M-26; thence S00° 02′ 18″ W 112.29 feet to a point located in the Southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway M-26; thence S50° 16′ 58″ E 21.89 feet; thence S35° 39′ 41″ E 251.20 feet; thence S32° 31′ 34″ W 189.24 feet; thence N55° 59′ 01″ W 158.27 feet; thence N58° 48′ 17″ W 75.02 feet to a point located in the Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence S32° 31′ 34″ W 44.66 feet along said Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence on a curve to the right, having a radius of 2814.93 feet a long chord bearing and distance of S39° 15′ 17″ W 659.63 feet, 661.15 feet along said Northwesterly right-of-way line of an abandoned railroad; thence continuing along said abandoned railroad right-of-way S45° 59′ 00″ W 458.12 feet; thence due North 468.57 feet to the point of beginning, containing 461,453 square feet, which is 10.59 acres including road right-of-ways. Government Lot 1—Section 27—T.55N-R.33W lying east of abandoned railroad Right-of-Way. That portion of Government Lot 2—Section 27—T.55N-R.33W lying in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section. It being understood and intended that the above described land extends to the waters edge of Torch Lake and to include any tailing sands and slag that may have accreted to said land, or to other lands in Section 26—T.55N.—R.33W.

The Site is located on the Keweenaw Peninsula in Houghton County, Michigan. The Site (CERCLIS ID MID980901946) includes Torch Lake, the northern portion of Portage Lake, and the northern entry of Torch Lake. The following areas were selected for remedial measures and thus became part of the Site: defined areas of stamp sands, tailing piles, and slag materials along the shore of and in the vicinity of Torch Lake, Northern Portage Lake, Keweenaw Waterway, Lake Superior, Boston Pond, Calumet Lake, Lake Linden, Hubbell/Tamarack City, Mason, Calumet Lake, Michigan Smelter, Isle Royale, Gross Point, and Quincy Smelter. These defined areas were not investigated at depth and were defined as part of the Torch Lake Superfund Site the surficial materials (stamp sands, tailings, and slag) on these areas and their relative locations to the Torch Lake water body. These areas cover over 600 acres. During the Site investigation, samples were taken of the surface (0-6 inches) and shallow subsurface (0-3 feet) stamp sands, tailings, and slag piles at the frequency of approximately one composite sample per 20 acre-parcel. Data generated reflected similar chemical characteristics in all samples collected. This data was sufficient to assume homogeneity of these materials and to support selection of the Site's remedial action.

The remedial action included the installation of a soil vegetative cover over these defined areas of stamp sands, tailings, and slag in order to meet the Site Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs). The remedial action only addressed surfurce materials associated with the covered land parcels. There may be non-Site related contamination with depth or in the vicinity of these defined areas of stamp sands, tailings, and slag that are not addressed by this Site remedial action (i.e., vegetative cover). This potential contamination was not evaluated or addressed as part of the remedial measures for the Torch Lake Superfund Site. Non-Site related contamination, if identified in the future, will not be addressed by a subsequent action as part of the Torch Lake Superfund Site's remedial action.

Torch Lake was the site of copper milling and smelting facilities and operations for over 100 years. Torch Lake was a repository of milling wastes, and served as the waterway transportation to support the mining industry. The first mill opened on Torch Lake in 1868. At the mills, copper was extracted by crushing or stamping the rock into smaller pieces and driving them through successively smaller meshes. The copper and crushed rocks were separated by gravimetric sorting in a liquid medium. The copper was sent to a smelter. The crushed rock particles, called tailings, were discarded along with mill processing water, typically by pumping them into the Lake.

Mining output, milling activity, and tailing production peaked in the Keweenaw Peninsula in the early 1900s to 1920. All of the mills at Torch Lake were located on the west shore of the Lake and many other mining mills and smelters were located throughout the Keweenaw Peninsula. In the early 1900s, advances in technology allowed recovery of copper from tailings previously deposited in Torch Lake. Dredges were used to collect submerged tailings which were then screened, recrushed, and gravity separated. An ammonia leaching process involving cupric ammonium carbonate was used to recover copper and other metals from conglomerate tailings. During the 1920s, chemical reagents were used to further increase the efficiency of reclamation. The chemical reagents included lime, pyridine oil, coal tar creosotes, wood creosote, pine oil, and xanthates. After reclamation activities were complete, chemically treated tailings were returned to the lake. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Torch Lake mills operated mainly to recover tailings in Torch Lake. In the 1950s, copper mills were still active; but by the late 1960s, copper milling had ceased.

Over 5 million tons of native copper was produced from the Keweenaw Peninsula and more than half of this was processed along the shores of Torch Lake. Between 1868 and 1968, approximately 200 million tons of tailings were dumped into Torch Lake filling at least 20 percent of the Lake's original volume.

In June 1972, a discharge of 27,000 gallons of cupric ammonium carbonate leaching liquor occurred into the north end of Torch Lake from the storage vats at the Lake Linden Leaching Plant. The Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) investigated the spill. The 1973 MWRC report discerned no deleterious effects associated with the spill, but did observe discoloration of several acres of the lake bottom indicating previous discharges. In the 1970s, environmental concern developed regarding the century-long deposition of tailings into Torch Lake. High concentrations of copper and other heavy metals in Torch Lake sediments, toxic discharges into the Lake, and fish abnormalities prompted many investigations into long and short-term impacts attributed to mine waste disposal. The International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board designated the Torch Lake basin as a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) in 1983. Also in 1983, the Michigan Department of Public Health announced an advisory against the consumption of Torch Lake sauger and walleye fish due to tumors of unknown origin.

The Torch Lake Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in October of 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 40320). The Site was placed on the NPL in June 1986, (51 FR21054). The Torch Lake Site is also on the list of sites identified under Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 Part 201. Residential use is planned for these land parcels after they are deleted from the NPL.

On May 9, 1988 Special Notice Letters were issued to Universal Oil Products and Quincy Mining Company to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Universal Oil Products was the successor corporation of Calumet Hecla Mining Company which operated its milling and smelting on the shore of Lake Linden and disposed the generated tailings in the area. On June 13, 1988 a Notice Letter was issued to Quincy Development Company, which was the current owner of a tailing pile located on the Lake shore of Mason City. Negotiations for the RI/FS Consent Order with these Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) were not successful due to issues such as the extent of the Site, and the number of PRPs. Subsequently, EPA contracted with Donohue & Associates in November 1988 to perform the RI/FS at the Site.

On June 21, 1989 EPA collected a total of eight samples from drums located in the Old Calumet and Hecla Smelting Mill Site near Lake Linden, the Ahmeek Mill Site near Hubbell City, and the Quincy Site near Mason. On August 1, 1990 nine more samples were collected from drums located above the Tamarack Site near Tamarack City. Based on the results of these samples, EPA determined that some of these drums may have contained hazardous substances. During the week of May 8, 1989 EPA also conducted ground penetrating radar and a sub bottom profile (seismic) survey of the bottom of Torch Lake. The area in which this survey was conducted is immediately off-shore from the Old Calumet and Hecla Smelting Mill Site. The survey located several point targets (possibly drums) on the bottom of Torch Lake.

Due to the size and complex nature of the Site, six OUs have been defined for the Site. OU1, OU2 and OU3 are the remedial OUs; and OU4, OU5 and OU6 are the removal OUs. OU1 includes surface tailings, drums, and slag piles on the western shore of Torch Lake. Approximately 500 acres of tailings were previously exposed surficially in OU1. The Hubbell/Tamarack Tailings, the Lake Linden Tailings and Mason Sands parcels are included in OU1. OU2 includes groundwater, surface water, submerged tailings and sediment in Torch Lake, Portage Lake, the Portage channel, and other surface water bodies at the Site. OU3 includes the North Entry of Lake Superior Tailings, Michigan Smelter Tailings, Quincy Smelter Tailings, Calumet Lake Tailings, Isle Royale Tailings, Boston Pond Tailings, and Grosse-Point (Point Mills) Tailings, and Dollar Bay Tailings. Remedial Investigations have been completed for all six OUs. The RI for OUs 1 and 3 only investigated the surface (0-6 inches) and shallow subsurface (0-3 feet) stamp sands. In addition, the RI assumed that the stamp sands were homogenous, i.e., the stamp sands had similar characteristics wherever they were located.

The sampling performed to characterize the OU3 and OU1 tailings was adequate to select the Torch Lake Site remedial action based on the homogeneity of the parameters measured, the distribution of contaminant compounds, and the relatively low levels of contaminants found. While hot spot contamination may exist, it is not attributable to tailings composition, and could not be reliably located or predicted using any reasonable sampling program. The RI and Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) reports for OU1 were finalized in July 1991. The RI and BRA reports for OU3 were finalized on February 7, 1992.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 and OU3 was signed on September 30, 1992; and the ROD for OU2 was signed on March 31, 1994.

The selected remedial action for the various tailings areas was a soil and vegetative cover, and deed restrictions to control the migration of tailing piles. The cover prevents direct contact exposures as well as prevents erosion from surface water runoff and the wind. The cover helps prevent the further degradation of Torch Lake's eco-system, allowing the Lake to recover over time.

The RAOs for OU1 and OU3 were developed as a result of data collected during the RI and included activities to reduce or minimize the exposure to and release of contaminants in tailings and/or slag located at the Site. These include:

1. Reduce or minimize potential risks to human health associated with the inhalation of airborne contaminants from the tailings and/or slag located at the Site;

2. Reduce or minimize potential risks to human health associated with direct contact with and/or the ingestion of the tailings and/or the slag located at the Site;

3. Reduce or minimize the release of contaminants in tailings to the groundwater through leaching; and

4. Reduce or minimize the release of contaminants in tailings to the surface water and sediment by soil erosion and/or air deposition.

All of the RAOs for the Torch Lake parcels in this deletion package have been met with the successful implementation of a vegetative cover over the stamp sands, tailing piles, and slag materials and with the implementation of deed restrictions which prevent disturbance of the vegetative covers. The vegetative soil cover reduces airborne and direct contact exposure to the contaminants in the stamp sands, tailings, and slag. The affected groundwater is part of OU2, for which the selected remedy was no action. OU2 was deleted from the NPL in 2002 and since the selected remedy for groundwater was no action, the reduction or minimization of the release of contaminants in tailings to the groundwater through leaching does not apply to OU's 1 and 3. The vegetative soil cover serves to stabilize the stamp sands, tailings, and slag and reduce the erosion of these materials and their associated contaminants to the surface water and sediment.

A 12 acre portion of the Isle Royale tailings in OU3 was excluded from the area to be covered with soil and vegetation because it was developed as a sewage treatment facility. The remaining 48 acres was covered with soil and vegetation by the Portage Lake Water and Sewage Authority as part of the sewage treatment facility development plan.

A 90 acre portion of the Isle Royale Tailings was developed as a residential area and was excluded from the area to be covered with soil and vegetation.

A 60 acre area of the Isle Royale Tailings portion is currently being used to make cement blocks and as a finished block storage area for the Superior Block Company and was excluded from the area to be covered with soil and vegetation. The owner and/or operator of Superior Block Company must use dust control measures such as water spray during the operation of mining and other activities in order to reduce the release of dust into the air.

The selected remedy for OU2 (groundwater, surface water and sediments associated with the Site), which is not the focus of this partial deletion, was “No Action” with long-term monitoring and Institutional Controls with respect to groundwater use. OU2 is impacted by OU1 and OU3 because wind-blown and eroded tailings from OU1 and OU3 migrate into the surface water and contaminate the sediment. The contaminated stamp sand serves as a continuing source of environmentally harmful contamination to the Lake and diminished the effectiveness of the Lake's natural sedimentation process.

In August 1994, an Interagency Agreement (IAG) was signed with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to perform remedial design (RD) work. The RD was conducted in conformance with the 1992 ROD and was completed for the entire Site in September 1998.

Actual on-site construction began in June 1999 and was completed in September 2005. A Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) documenting construction completion was signed on September 23, 2005.

Mason Sands Tailings (225 acres covered) were covered in October 2002. Just prior to on-site construction activities at Mason Sands, the USDA-NRCS commissioned Michigan Technological University to conduct an archaeological survey to evaluate and document the cultural remnants at the Mason Sands portion of the Site. This was done because of the numerous historical mining and milling related relics located around the Mason area and the concern over losing important cultural remnants as a result of remedy implementation. The results of the survey were presented in a report dated May 2001, “ Archeological Survey Report of the Quincy Mining Company Torch Lake Smelter & Reclamation Plant at Mason Sands Torch Lake EPA Superfund Site”, which was filed in the EPA's Torch Lake Site Administrative Record. The May 2001 report concluded that implementation of the remedy at the Mason Sands portion of the Site would have only a minor negative impact on cultural and historical values, and therefore, EPA proceeded with remedy implementation.

The remedial design specifications were modified during the implementation phase and sandy soil, consisting of six to ten inches of sandy-loam soil and a vegetative mat were used in place of topsoil. The vegetative mat was achieved through a seed mix applied directly on top of the sandy-loam soil. The seed mix was typically applied at approximately 90 pounds per acre. The typical seed mix contained six species of plants, including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perene), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), creeping red fescue (Festica rubra), red clover (Trifolium pratense), alfalfa (vernal Medicago falcata), and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus comiculatus). This mix of plant species was selected because of their rapid growth rate and relative resilience with minimal maintenance. Rapid stabilization of the soil cover material with vegetation was important at the Site in order to avoid soil washouts and to accommodate the short growing season. Variations of this seed mix were applied to a small number of areas to accommodate landowner preference. Overall, the vegetative growth is well established and is stabilizing the soil portion of the cover material.

The sandy-loam borrow soil was located and obtained by construction firms under contract with the USDA-NRCS to implement the remedy and met modified USDA-NRCS soil specifications. Borrow soils for Mason Sands were obtained directly across the narrow Torch Lake channel located on the south-east shore of the Mason Sands. Remedial action construction activities were performed according to approved design and specifications at Mason Sands and it is anticipated that the cover material and shoreline protection will continue to meet remedial action objectives established for the Site.

No physical work was required as part of the OU2 No Action ROD, thus there were no construction activities for this OU. EPA deleted OU2 in the April 2002 partial NPL delisting.

Remedial action construction activities were performed according to approved design and specifications at Michigan Smelter Tailings. The 1992 ROD for OU1and OU3 designated some exceptions to the soil cover for the Isle Royale Tailings area. Theses exceptions included portions that were being developed or used for other purposes. Areas that were covered continued the same soil and seed mix as used in OU1. In 2004, EPA completed the remedy at the Isle Royale Tailings by placing a 6-inch vegetative cover over area stamp sands and placing rip-rap along the shoreline of the area. The change to include rip-rap was documented in a Memo to the File dated July 7, 2004.

In 1994, EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to all affected landowners requiring them, within six months of the AOC, to implement the appropriate deed restriction on their property. The deed restrictions run with the land and bind future owners to the restrictions. The institutional controls serve to protect vegetative cover and thus prevent residual mining contamination from entering surface water by ensuring that no disturbance of vegetative cover occurs; or if disturbance occurs, the owner is required to replace soil and repair vegetative cover. There are Restrictive Covenants on approximately half of the properties at the Site, which include the Michigan Smelter Tailings property. The Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Isle Royale Tailings was signed on October 14, 2008. The following restriction applies; “If during the process of any development, building, construction, or other activity on the property by or with consent from the owner of the property, the cover is disturbed so that upon completion of the development, construction, building or other activity stamp sand is exposed, then the owner of the property shall cover the exposed stamp sand and shall re-vegetate the re-covered area”.

The objectives of the remedies were to control exposures to Site contaminants and control erosion of stamp sands, tailings and slag to the surface water and sediments by covering them with vegetation. The remedial actions at Isle Royale Tailings, Michigan Smelter Tailings, and Mason Sands Tailings are operational and functional. The remedial actions are functioning properly and performing as designed.

EPA conducted activities necessary to ensure that the implemented remedy at Isle Royale Tailings, Michigan Smelter Tailings, and Mason Sands was operational and functional for a period up to three years after remedial construction at the last parcel. The remedy was jointly determined by EPA and MDEQ to be functioning properly and performing as designed in September 2008. EPA conducted annual observations of the remediated areas for three years after construction, and conducted major repairs as necessary, on each area where the remedy was implemented.

In 2002, EPA conducted a study of terrestrial environments at the Site to characterize and document the ecological conditions of the tailing areas before and after implementation of the remedy. The results of the study were presented in the Torch Lake Stamp Sand Evaluation Report dated March 2003. The report indicated a significant environmental improvement. The soil and vegetative cover has resulted in the development of a soil stabilizing plant community and habitat which has attracted birds and mammals.

In 1999 and 2000, as part of long-term monitoring, EPA conducted environmental sampling as a way to establish the environmental baseline conditions of Torch Lake. The results of the sampling efforts are presented in the Baseline Study Report dated August 2001. Future long-term monitoring events will be conducted by MDEQ and the results compared to the 2001 baseline study to identify changes and/or establish trends in lake conditions. MDEQ has had the lead for OU2 monitoring since 2002, when OU2 was deleted from the NPL.

In 2004, MDEQ conducted sampling activities for monitoring of Torch Lake. The monitoring was undertaken to document and measure the status of natural recovery of the Lake following remedial actions. The 2004 sampling work included assessing the benthic community populations, measuring sediment toxicity to benthic invertebrates, measuring concentrations of metals and semi-volatile organic compounds in sediment and groundwater, and studying the sedimentation process in lake sediments. The 2004 MDEQ long-term monitoring data includes reports with information relevant to sedimentation rates and sediment toxicity.

MDEQ will be conducting O&M of the shoreline protection and cover material. In accordance with the September 1998 Superfund Site Contract (SSC) signed by EPA and MDEQ, O&M was to begin three years after the remedy implementation or when the remedy was jointly determined by EPA and MDEQ to be functioning properly as designed, whichever is earlier. This milestone was reached in September 2008 for Isle Royale Tailings, Michigan Smelter Tailings, and Mason Sands Tailings; along with several other Torch Lake property parcels.

EPA conducted FYRs of the Site in 2003 and 2008. In the reviews, EPA concluded that all remedial actions are complete. The 2008 FYR noted that the Isle Royale, Michigan Smelter Tailings and Mason Sands remedies are protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. The 2008 FYR calls for continued documentation from landowners at the Site to verify proper deed restrictions are in place. The next FYR will be conducted in 2013.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which EPA relied on for recommendation of the Partial Deletion of this Site from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories, and at www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket include maps which identify the specific parcels of land that are proposed in this Notice (Isle-Royale Tailings, Michigan Smelter Tailings, and Mason Sands). Additional community outreach will be conducted to ensure the transparency of the deletion process; to increase awareness of potential non-Site related environmental issues near the deleted parcels; and to help the community understand exactly where the deleted portions of the Torch Lake Site are located.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that portions of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Michigan, has determined that no further action is appropriate.

The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Michigan, through MDEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3 and the Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1 of the Torch Lake Superfund Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective December 24, 2012 unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 23, 2012. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of partial deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and it will not take effect. EPA may prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments already received. In such case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment.

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

In FR Doc. 2012-21050 of September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53968), the final rule entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 2” there were a number of technical errors and typographical errors that are identified in the Summary of Errors section and corrected in the Correction of Errors section.

On page 54041 in our response to a public comment regarding the meaningful use objective “provide structured electronic lab results to eligible professionals,” we inadvertently did not replace a placeholder “ONC reference once available” with the reference when it became available.

On page 54051, in our discussion of the submission period for electronic submissions, we inadvertently omitted references to the applicable provider or supplier (that is, eligible professional (EP), eligible hospital, and critical access hospital) that has to meet the calendar year or fiscal year submission period requirements. Also on this page in the footnote following Table 5, we made errors in our description of the providers and suppliers that are in the first year of demonstrating meaningful use for purposes of avoiding a payment adjustment.

On page 54052 in our response to public comments regarding the transition to electronic health record (EHR) technology certified to the 2014 Edition EHR certification criteria, we inadvertently omitted certain CQMs that we included in the Stage 1 final rule but are not finalizing in the Stage 2 final rule for reporting beginning in CY 2014 after consideration of the public comments. Also on this page, in another response to public comments regarding 2011 Edition of EHR certification criteria, we made a grammatical error.

On page 54053, we inadvertently omitted certain CQMs that would be excluded from an EP's option of reporting in the Stage 1 final rule.

On pages 54044, 54055, 54056, 54058, 54068, 54079, 54081, and 54120, we made inadvertent errors in the numbering and referencing of several tables.

On page 54056, we made inadvertent errors in specifying the providers and suppliers that would receive the annual fiscal or calendar year updates to the clinical quality measure (CQM) specifications.

On pages 54069, 54072, and 54073, in Table 8—CQMs Finalized for Medicare and Medicaid EPs Beginning with CY 2014, we made several typographical and technical errors in the titles/descriptions of several CQMs. We also made typographical errors in referencing the footnotes for CQM 0418.

On page 54149, we made a technical error in an amendatory statement (NN) for § 495.6. In the amendatory statement, we erroneously stated that we were adding paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) instead of stating that we were adding paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B).

On pages 54155 and 54157, we made technical errors by omitting qualifying language in § 495.6(l)(6)(ii) and § 495.6(m)(4)(ii).

On page 54153 (in § 495.6(j)(14)(ii)(C)( 1 )), we made a typographical error in the regulatory citation.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographical errors in the preamble and regulations text of the September 4, 2012 final rule and does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.

In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering the policies that were already subject to comment and finalized in our final rule. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2012-21050 of September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53968), make the following corrections:

1. On page 54041, second column, third paragraph, line 17, the phrase “criteria at (ONC reference once available)” is corrected to read “criteria at 45 CFR 170.314(b)(6)”.

2. On page 54044, lower half of the page, in the table heading for Table B5—Stage 2 Objectives and Measures, the table number “Table B5” is corrected to read “Table 4A”.

3. On page 54051—

a. Top quarter of the page, second column, first full paragraph, line 4, the phrase “CY or FY respectively.” is corrected to read “CY or FY for EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs, respectively.”.

b. Second quarter of the page, in Table 5 Reporting and Submission Periods for EPs, Eligible Hospitals and CAHs in Their First Year of Meaningful Use Submitting CQMs Via Attestation Beginning With CY/FY 2014, the footnote following the table, line 1, the phrase “Medicare EPs and eligible hospitals” is corrected to read “EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program”.

4. On page 54052, third column—

a. First partial paragraph, line 1, the phrase “0013, 0027, 0084).” is corrected to read “0013, 0027, 0084) as well as 9 CQMs that we included in the Stage 1 final rule but are not finalizing in this Stage 2 final rule for reporting beginning in CY 2014 (NQF 0001, 0012, 0014, 0047, 0061, 0067, 0073, 0074, 0575)).”.

b. Last paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “EHR technology should based” is corrected to read “EHR technology should be based”.

5. On page 54053, first column, last bulleted paragraph, line 9, the phrase “reporting NQF 0013, 0027, 0084” is corrected to read “reporting NQF 0013, 0027, 0084, 0001, 0012, 0014, 0047, 0061, 0067, 0073, 0074, 0575”.

6. On page 54055, first column, first full paragraph, lines 22 and 23, the phrase “MAP in Tables 7 (EPs) and 8 (eligible hospitals and CAHs)” is corrected to read “MAP in Tables 8 (EPs) (77 FR 13749 through 13757 and 9 (eligible hospitals and CAHs) (77 FR 13760 through 13763)”.

7. On page 54056, second column, fourth full paragraph—

a. Line 7, the phrase “FY/CY for hospitals and EPs respectively.” is corrected to read “FY and CY for eligible hospitals and CAHs, and EPs, respectively.”.

b. Line 29, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

c. Line 32, the reference “Table 8” is corrected to read “Table 10”.

8. On page 54058—

a. Second column, fourth full paragraph, line 4, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 2, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

9. On page 54068,

a. First column, first full paragraph—

(1) Line 5, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

(2) Line 7, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8 “.

(b) First column, second full paragraph, line 3, “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

c. Third column, first full paragraph, line 3, the reference “Table 7” is corrected to read “Table 8”.

10. On pages 54069 through 54075, in Table 8—CQMs Finalized for Medicare and Medicaid EPs Beginning with CY 2014, we make the following corrections:

a. Column 2 (CQM title and description) is corrected for the following entries:

In the final rule for the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Commission Docket No. 11-05) appearing on page 61519 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, October 10, 2012, the following corrections are made:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, adopted September 27, 2012, and released September 28, 2012. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via email www.BCPIWEB.com . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990 (1990 Act) (section 15 of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-500, 104 Stat. 1218) amended the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to prohibit motor carriers that receive unsatisfactory safety ratings from operating CMVs, as defined in section 204(1) of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, to transport (1) quantities of hazardous materials for which vehicle placarding is required. Because of subsequent amendments to section 204(1)—codified at 49 U.S.C. 31132(1)—the prohibition also applies to CMVs transporting (2) 9-15 passengers, including the driver, for direct compensation, and (3) more than 15 passengers, including the driver, but not for direct compensation. The 1990 Act established a period of 45 days during which these motor carriers could take necessary corrective action to improve their safety rating to conditional or satisfactory. The statute required the FHWA (FMCSA's predecessor agency) to review a motor carrier's corrective actions within 30 days after the date of a safety rating upgrade request.

Section 4009 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998), revised 49 U.S.C. 31144 to apply to all owners and operators of CMVs, not just those transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding. It expressly authorized the Agency to allow owners and operators not transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding up to an additional 60 days to continue to operate if they were making a good faith effort to become fit.

The Agency's regulations in 49 CFR 385.17 outline the procedures that FMCSA and affected motor carriers  1 must follow to upgrade a safety rating based on corrective action. A motor carrier transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding may request an upgrade of a proposed or final conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating at any time based on corrective action it has taken. If the Agency proposes an unsatisfactory safety rating, the 45-day period in which the motor carrier must make improvements begins on the day written notice of the proposed rating is given by FMCSA. If the corrective action is determined to be insufficient, the proposed unsatisfactory rating becomes effective and the motor carrier must cease transportation of passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding immediately, which would be the 46th day from the date of written notice of the proposed unsatisfactory rating. FMCSA makes its determination expeditiously because a final unsatisfactory safety rating will preclude any further operation of CMVs by the motor carrier. If the motor carrier has submitted evidence that corrective action has been taken and FMCSA is unable to make its determination within the 45-day review period, the current provisions of 49 CFR 385.17(f) indicates the Agency may extend the 45-day review period by up to 10 additional days.

This provision allowing an extension of the effective date in order for the Agency to review a motor carrier's corrective action has been part of the regulations since 1991. 2 Current Agency policy  3 , however, does not allow for extensions of the effective date of a proposed unsatisfactory safety rating for motor carriers transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding.

The legal basis for this final rule is found in 49 U.S.C. 31144(b) and (c). The statute directs the Secretary to maintain by regulation a procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV). Section 31144(b)(3) requires the regulations to include specific time frames for such determinations. Section 31144(c)(1) requires that an owner or operator determined to be unfit is generally prohibited from operating CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132, in interstate commerce on the 61st day after the determination. Under sections 31144(c)(2) and (c)(3), however, owners or operators transporting either passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding on the vehicle are prohibited from operating CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132, 4 in interstate commerce on the 46th day after the determination of unfitness is made.

Section 31144(c)(4) gives the Secretary the discretion to allow an owner or operator to operate for an additional 60 days after the 61st day following the fitness determination “if the Secretary determines that such owner or operator is making a good faith effort to become fit.” But this provision specifically excludes from this discretionary authority owners or operators transporting either passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding. Therefore, such owners or operators are not allowed an additional period of operation following the 45th day after the unfitness determination is made. Authority to carry out these provisions has been delegated by the Secretary to the Administrator of FMCSA under 49 CFR 1.87(f).

Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally allows agencies to promulgate final rules only after notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment, agencies need not do so when notice and comment would be “unnecessary” under the good cause exception, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FMCSA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary in this case, and not otherwise required by law, because the Agency is performing a nondiscretionary administrative act to conform its regulations to 49 U.S.C. 31144.

The purpose of this final rule is to bring 49 CFR 385.17(f) into conformity with § 31144(c)(4) by removing the provision allowing a 10-day extension of the effective date of a proposed unsatisfactory rating for motor carriers transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding. No change is being made to 49 CFR 385.17(g) which allows, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31144(c)(4), for motor carriers not transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding to continue to operate for up to an additional 60 days at the Agency's discretion. FMCSA has updated the terminology used for motor carriers transporting hazardous materials to be consistent with terminology used elsewhere in this part.

If the Agency issues a proposed unsatisfactory safety fitness rating, the carrier should submit its evidence of corrective actions within 15 days thereafter in order to ensure adequate time for review. Otherwise, the motor carrier risks a final safety fitness rating of “unsatisfactory” or “unfit” and being placed out of service. FMCSA acknowledges that some motor carriers in this category have waited until late into the corrective action period provided by 49 CFR 385.17 to submit evidence of corrective action, leaving Agency officials little or no time for review. However, § 385.17 indicates the Agency will complete its review within 30 days of the carrier's submission of a request for a change in the safety fitness rating. In order to allow 30 days for the Agency to complete its review within the 45-day, non-extendable window from the issuance of the proposed unfit rating, the carrier must submit evidence demonstrating corrective action within 15 days.

Providing FMCSA receives evidence of corrective action within 15 days of the date of the proposed safety fitness rating, Agency officials will review and make a decision on whether it is acceptable before the end of the 45-day period. Should evidence of corrective action be received more than 15 days after the date of the proposed unsatisfactory safety fitness rating, the Agency will not guarantee that the evidence will be considered prior to the end of the 45-day, non-extendable window. If the corrective action period expires before the Agency makes a determination, the proposed rating will become the final rating and the carrier will be prohibited from operating commercial motor vehicles. This policy is consistent with the Agency's August 16, 2012, notice concerning the timely submission of corrective action plans by new entrant carriers (77 FR 49384). If the FMCSA subsequently determines that the corrective action plan is acceptable, the carrier may be reinstated consistent with the Agency's fit, willing, and able policy published on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 46147).

FMCSA has determined that this action does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, or within the meaning of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). As explained above, this final rule is strictly ministerial in that it incorporates a nondiscretionary statutory requirement and includes administrative and technical corrections. These changes are necessary to make FMCSA's regulations consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31144.

Under 49 CFR 385.17(f), the decision of whether to grant a carrier an extension of the date on which a proposed unsatisfactory rating becomes final has always been at the Agency's discretion. The Agency can deny requests for extensions. The Agency's current policy is to deny an extension to any motor carrier transporting passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding; thus, no such extensions are currently being granted. As a result, incorporating this policy into the Agency's regulations would have no practical effect on the industry.

The only potential impact of this regulatory change would be to eliminate the provision that would allow motor carriers transporting either passengers or hazardous materials in quantities requiring placarding to continue operating for an additional 10 days pending a final determination of their safety fitness. However, current Agency policy is to deny these extensions. The rule would have no economic impact on the motor carrier industry, or significant safety impacts. Therefore, a full regulatory impact analysis has not been conducted, nor has there been a review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under this executive order.

FMCSA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the Agency has not issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking prior to this action and, therefore, is not required in that case to prepare such an analysis, 5 U.S.C. 604(a). This final rule also complies with the President's memorandum of January 18, 2011, entitled Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation (76 FR 3827). As addressed above, promulgation of this final rule is strictly ministerial in that it incorporates in FMCSA regulations a nondiscretionary statutory requirement currently in place and includes administrative and technical corrections.

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 this Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $143.1 million (which is the calendar year 2010 value used in lieu of the $100 million threshold included in the 1995 statute, after adjusting for inflation) or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.

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

FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(u) of Appendix 2. This categorical exclusion covers regulations affecting the process for issuing orders to comply with the regulations or issuing a civil penalty. A Categorical Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.

FMCSA also analyzed this action under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it would result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis.

The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this action.

This final rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have implications under Executive Order 12630.

This final rule raises no environmental justice issues nor is there any collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.

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

This final rule does not pose an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

A rulemaking 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 State or local governments. FMCSA analyzed this action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not preempt or modify any provision of State law, impose substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any State, or diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.

FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 385 as set forth below:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 26,348 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 26,298 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 17, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.