The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

These product categories are designated under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”).

As part of the BioPreferred Program, USDA published, on December 5, 2012, a proposed rule in the Federal Register (FR) for the purpose of designating a total of eight product categories, and two new subcategories within previously designated product categories, for the preferred procurement of biobased products by Federal agencies (referred to hereafter in this FR notice as the “preferred procurement program”). This proposed rule can be found at 77 FR 72654. This rulemaking is referred to in this preamble as Round 10 (RIN 0599-AA16).

In the proposed rule, USDA proposed designating the following eight product categories for the preferred procurement program: Aircraft and boat cleaners; automotive care products; engine crankcase oil; gasoline fuel additives; metal cleaners and corrosion removers; microbial cleaning products; paint removers; and water turbine bearing oils. USDA also proposed to add the following subcategories to previously designated product categories: countertops to the composite panels category; and wheel bearing and chassis grease to the greases category.

Today's final rule designates the proposed product categories within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference and adds the proposed countertops subcategory to the existing composite panels product category. USDA has determined that each of the product categories being designated under today's rulemaking meets the necessary statutory requirements; that they are being produced with biobased products; and that their procurement will carry out the following objectives of section 9002: to improve demand for biobased products; to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and to enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas.

When USDA designates by rulemaking a product category (a generic grouping of products) for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program, manufacturers of all products under the umbrella of that product category, that meet the requirements to qualify for preferred procurement, can claim that status for their products. To qualify for preferred procurement, a product must be within a designated product category and must contain at least the minimum biobased content established for the designated product category. With the designation of these specific product categories, USDA invites the manufacturers and vendors of qualifying products to provide information on the product, contacts, and performance testing for posting on its BioPreferred Web site, http://www.biopreferred.gov. Procuring agencies will be able to utilize this Web site as one tool to determine the availability of qualifying biobased products under a designated product category. Once USDA designates a product category, procuring agencies are required, generally, to purchase biobased products within the designated product category where the purchase price of the procurement product exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such products or of functionally equivalent products purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more.

The BioPreferred program started using the term product category in the fall of 2011 while drafting a proposed rule to amend the BioPreferred Program Guidelines (FR DOC # 2012-10420, published May 1, 2012). The preamble to that proposed rule explains the change from “items” to “product categories.” Below is the text that appears in the proposed rule:

“3. Replacement of “Designated Item” with “Designated Category”

The current guidelines use the term “designated item” to refer to a generic grouping of biobased products identified in subpart B as eligible for the procurement preference. The use of this term has created some confusion, however, because the word “item” is also used in the guidelines to refer to individual products rather than a generic grouping of products. USDA is proposing to replace the term “designated item” with the term “designated product category.” In addition, USDA is proposing to add a definition for the term “qualifying biobased product” to refer to an individual product that meets the definition and minimum biobased content criteria for a designated product category and is, therefore, eligible for the procurement preference. Although these changes are not required by section 9001 of FCEA, USDA believes the proposed terms and definitions will add clarity to the rule.”

Because USDA did not receive any comments opposing this change during the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule and because it will be some time until the rule is promulgated, USDA is incorporating the new product category language in this designation regulation.

Subcategorization. USDA is subcategorizing three of the product categories. Those product categories are: aircraft and boat cleaners; metal cleaners and corrosion removers; and microbial cleaning products. The subcategories for the aircraft and boat cleaners product category are: aircraft cleaners and boat cleaners. For the metal cleaners and corrosion removers product category, the subcategories are: stainless steel cleaners; other metal cleaners; and corrosion removers. For the microbial cleaning products category, the subcategories are: drain maintenance products; general cleaners; and wastewater maintenance products. USDA is also adding a new subcategory for countertops to the composite panels product category designated in Round 2 (73 FR 27954, May 14, 2008).

USDA will continue to gather additional data related to the categories designated today and additional subcategories may be created in a future rulemaking.

Minimum Biobased Contents. The minimum biobased contents being established with today's rulemaking are based on products for which USDA has biobased content test data. Because the submission of product samples for biobased content testing is on a strictly voluntary basis, USDA was able to obtain samples only from those manufacturers who volunteered to invest the resources required to submit the samples. USDA has, however, begun to receive additional biobased content data associated with manufacturer's applications for certification to use the USDA Certified Biobased Product label. These test results are also considered when determining the minimum biobased content levels for designated product categories.

In today's final rule, the minimum biobased content for the water turbine bearing oils category is based on a single tested product. USDA will continue to gather information on the lubricant product categories designated today and if additional data on the biobased content for products within these designated categories are obtained, USDA will evaluate whether the minimum biobased content should be revised in a future rule. We are also clarifying definitions of water turbine bearing oils versus turbine drip oils.

Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for recovered content products under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 6002. This final rule designates one product category for Federal preferred procurement for which there may be overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product. The product category is engine crankcase oils, which may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product “Re-refined lubricating oils.” EPA provides recovered materials content recommendations for these recovered content products in Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) I. The RMAN recommendations for these CPG products can be found by accessing EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/products.htm and then clicking on the appropriate product name.

Federal Government Purchase of Sustainable Products. The Federal government's sustainable purchasing program includes the following three statutory preference programs for designated products: the BioPreferred Program, the Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for products containing recovered materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and services.

Other Preferred Procurement Programs. Federal procurement officials should also note that biobased products may be available for purchase by Federal agencies through the AbilityOne Program (formerly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program). Under this program, members of organizations including the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) offer products and services for preferred procurement by Federal agencies. A search of the AbilityOne Program's online catalog (www.abilityone.gov) indicated that products within three of the product categories, or subcategories, being designated today are available through the AbilityOne Program. These are: Composite Panels—Countertops, Metal Cleaners and Corrosion Removers—Stainless Steel Cleaners, and Metal Cleaners and Corrosion Removers—Other Metal Cleaners. While there is no specific product within these product categories identified in the AbilityOne online catalog as being a biobased product, it is possible that such biobased products are available or will be available in the future. Also, because additional categories of products are frequently added to the AbilityOne Program, it is possible that biobased products within other product categories being designated today may be available through the AbilityOne Program in the future. Procurement of biobased products through the AbilityOne Program would further the objectives of both the AbilityOne Program and the preferred procurement program.

Outreach. To augment its own research, USDA consults with industry and Federal stakeholders to the preferred procurement program during the development of the rulemaking packages for the designation of product categories. USDA requests stakeholder input in gathering information used in determining the order of product category designation and in identifying: Manufacturers producing and marketing products that fall within a product category proposed for designation; performance standards used by Federal agencies evaluating products to be procured; and warranty information used by manufacturers of end user equipment and other products with regard to biobased products.

Future Designations. In making future designations, USDA will continue to conduct market searches to identify manufacturers of biobased products within product categories. USDA will then contact the identified manufacturers to solicit samples of their products for voluntary submission for biobased content testing. Based on these results, USDA will then propose new product categories for designation for preferred procurement.

USDA has developed a preliminary list of product categories for future designation and has posted this preliminary list on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an initial prioritization of product categories for designation, USDA cannot identify with certainty which product categories will be presented in each of the future rulemakings. In response to comments from other Federal agencies, USDA intends to give increased priority to those product categories that contain the highest biobased content. In addition, as the program matures, manufacturers of biobased products within some industry segments have become more responsive to USDA's requests for technical information than those in other segments. Thus, product categories with high biobased content and for which sufficient technical information can be obtained quickly may be added or moved up on the prioritization list.

USDA solicited comments on the proposed rule for 60 days ending on February 4, 2013. USDA received four comments by that date. Two of the comments were from manufacturers of biobased products, one was from another Federal agency, and the fourth was from a trade association. The comments are presented below, along with USDA's responses, and are shown under the product categories to which they apply.

USDA received comments on wheel bearing and chassis greases, crankcase oils, gasoline fuel additives, and microbial cleaning products. After consideration of the comments, USDA has decided to: (1) Delay the designation of the wheel bearing and chassis greases subcategory; (2) revise the minimum biobased content of the engine crankcase oil product category upward to 25 percent from the proposed level of 18 percent; and (3) add clarification to the definition of the water turbine bearing oils product category. Additional information on these changes is presented below in the discussion of public comments.

A trade association had a number of comments on how USDA administers the BioPreferred program. This same trade association had also made earlier similar comments July 2, 2012 in response to the proposed amendments to the revised Program Guidelines. The final guidelines have not yet been published. Although we will discuss these process comments herein, USDA will address the comments at a later date in revisions to the Program Guidelines, to which they are directly applicable.

Comment: The trade association focused their comments on “the environmental elements of the BioPreferred program” and stated products “should be designated and preferred based upon their improved health profile, which could include manufacturing improvements, environmental and/or health benefits, and disposal mechanisms.” The association further commented that biobased content, “While a key factor, is only one of many potential environmental considerations.”

Response: Although the BioPreferred program is often associated with environmental programs and biobased products generally offer environmental benefits, USDA is charged with considering products that contain biobased carbon which Federal agencies are required to buy. The program's rationale is to use the purchasing power of the Federal government to pull the market for biobased products that are made from agricultural commodities. USDA does not have the legislative mandate to consider all environmental factors in designating a product category.

Comment: The trade association is critical of sample sizes and calls for “more robust” sample sizes.

Response: This is a voluntary program and USDA cannot collect any more information than companies are willing to provide. Moreover, by law USDA cannot ask biobased companies to supply any more information than non-biobased competitors. It is up to Federal procurement officials to solicit additional information from biobased companies to help in the procurement decision-making process.

Comment: The trade association calls for USDA to provide more information on “exclusions” (i.e., price, performance and availability).

Response: As indicated above, USDA cannot mandate that private companies provide such data. USDA believes consideration of exclusionary factors is a matter to be discussed on a case-by-case basis between buyer and seller.

Comment: The commenter stated that confidential business information (CBI) should not be posted on the BioPreferred Web site.

Response: USDA agrees and does not post CBI.

Comment: One commenter felt USDA was “accommodating to the less-renewable end of the range” with an “orphan data point” at 21 percent.

Response: USDA appreciates the comment. The commenter notes correctly that 21 percent was on the lower end of the range and does appear to be an outlier. In addition to this public comment, USDA has received information from a major marketer of engine crankcase oils stating that they have a line of products with biobased contents between 25 and 30 percent. In light of this new information, we are revising the minimum content to 25 percent.

We believe that this revision accomplishes several objectives. First, the minimum will not be based on a single product that appears to be somewhat of an outlier relative to the remainder of the data. Second, it is consistent with our stated plans to update minimum biobased contents with the most recent data whenever the opportunity arises. The original data point upon which the proposed 18% minimum biobased content was based is over 2 years old, while the newer information was obtained within the past 6 months. Third, USDA believes that establishing the minimum biobased content at a level that is achieved by a major marketer of engine oils provides more flexibility to purchasing agencies and more public visibility for the BioPreferred program.

Comment: One commenter asked that USDA lower the biobased content from 92 percent to 70 percent.

Response: USDA is charged with administrating a program where Federal buyers are charged with procuring products with the highest biobased content possible that will still deliver performance. In the absence of any technical data to the contrary, we have decided to keep the content level at the proposed level of 92 percent. However, if data can be identified to confirm the content level of 92 percent is not technically effective or necessary, USDA will revisit that content specification in later rulemaking.

Comment: One commenter stated the “NAVSEA 6840-U.S. Navy surface ship (non-submarine) authorized chemical cleaning products and dispensing systems)” should not be cited as a test method, but simply as a listing of approved products. The commenter further stated it should not necessarily be listed as a general reference because the products listed here are covered by the general exemption of combat related missions.

Response: USDA agrees with the suggestion of the Federal commenter.

Comment: One commenter noted water turbine bearing oils defined as “lubricants that are specially formulated for use in bearings found in water turbines” which is different from an earlier designation, “turbine drip oils” which are introduced when oils are introduced down the shaft of producing water wells that lubricate the bearings of submerged pump components.

Response: USDA appreciates the clarification and has revised the definition in the final rule to indicate these latter turbine drip oils are used to lubricate bearings of electric power generating water turbines.

Comment: One commenter stated that “the wheel bearing and chassis grease which cannot be reached with a biobased content of 50 percent” and pointed out that there is a problem meeting the GC ASTM-D-4950 part of the specification because of the high temperature process used to make lithium complex grease. Another commenter asked that USDA not list chassis grease, as there is “incompatibility” between existing petroleum-based greases and biobased greases.

Response: USDA believes the ASTM issue is a complex one and requires additional technical data. Thus, USDA will not list the subcategory of wheel bearing and chassis grease at this time but will investigate and defer designation to a later round. As regards the incompatibility issue, USDA does not believe potential incompatibility represents a reason not to designate a biobased category or subcategory. If a particular product will not function properly in a certain application, that product obviously will not meet performance requirements and thus need not be shown the procurement preference.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires agencies to determine whether a regulatory action is “significant.” The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

Today's final rule has been determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. We are not able to quantify the annual economic effect associated with today's final rule. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, USDA made extensive efforts to obtain information on the Federal agencies' usage within the eight designated product categories, including their subcategories. These efforts were largely unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to determine the economic impacts of today's final rule would require estimation of the anticipated market penetration of biobased products based upon many assumptions. In addition, because agencies have the option of not purchasing biobased products within designated product categories if price is “unreasonable,” the product is not readily available, or the product does not demonstrate necessary performance characteristics, certain assumptions may not be valid. While facing these quantitative challenges, USDA relied upon a qualitative assessment to determine the impacts of today's final rule. Consideration was also given to the fact that agencies may choose not to procure designated items due to unreasonable price.

Today's final rule is expected to have both positive and negative impacts on individual businesses, including small businesses. USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will provide additional opportunities for businesses and manufacturers to begin supplying products under the designated biobased product categories to Federal agencies and their contractors. However, other businesses and manufacturers that supply only non-qualifying products and do not offer biobased alternatives may experience a decrease in demand from Federal agencies and their contractors. USDA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including small businesses that may be adversely affected by today's final rule. The final rule, however, will not affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new requirements for designated biobased products. Because the extent to which procuring agencies will find the performance, availability and/or price of biobased products acceptable is unknown, it is impossible to quantify the actual economic effect of the rule.

The designation of these eight product categories provides the benefits outlined in the objectives of section 9002; to increase domestic demand for many agricultural commodities that can serve as feed stocks for production of biobased products, and to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities. On a national and regional level, today's final rule can result in expanding and strengthening markets for biobased materials used in these product categories.

Like the benefits, the costs of today's final rule have not been quantified. Two types of costs are involved: Costs to producers of products that will compete with the preferred products and costs to Federal agencies to provide procurement preference for the preferred products. Producers of competing products may face a decrease in demand for their products to the extent Federal agencies refrain from purchasing their products. However, it is not known to what extent this may occur. Pre-award procurement costs for Federal agencies may rise minimally as the contracting officials conduct market research to evaluate the performance, availability and price reasonableness of preferred products before making a purchase.

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

USDA evaluated the potential impacts of its designation of these product categories to determine whether its actions would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the preferred procurement program established under section 9002 applies only to Federal agencies and their contractors, small governmental (city, county, etc.) agencies are not affected. Thus, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small governmental jurisdictions.

USDA anticipates that this program will affect entities, both large and small, that manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, the designation of product categories for preferred procurement will provide additional opportunities for businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to Federal agencies and their contractors. Similar opportunities will be provided for entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers.

The intent of section 9002 is largely to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize emerging markets for those products. Because the program is still in its infancy, however, it is unknown how many businesses will ultimately be affected. While USDA has no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop and market biobased products within the product categories designated by this rulemaking, the number is expected to be small. Because biobased products represent a small emerging market, only a small percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to develop and market biobased products. Thus, the number of small businesses manufacturing biobased products affected by this rulemaking is not expected to be substantial.

The Federal preferred procurement program may decrease opportunities for businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or provide components for the manufacturing of such products. Most manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being proposed for designation for Federal preferred procurement in this rule are expected to be included under the following NAICS codes: 321999 (all other wood product manufacturing), 324191 (petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing), 325510 (paint and coating manufacturing), and 325612 (polish and other sanitation goods manufacturing). USDA obtained information on these four NAICS categories from the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census database. USDA found that the Economic Census reports about 4,270 companies within these 4 NAICS categories and that these companies own a total of about 4,860 establishments. Thus, the average number of establishments per company is about 1.14. The Census data also reported that of the 4,860 individual establishments, about 4,850 (99 percent) have fewer than 500 employees. USDA also found that the overall average number of employees per company among these industries is about 30 and that the petroleum lubricating oil and grease industry has the highest average number of employees per company with an average of almost 50. Thus, nearly all of the businesses fall within the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business (less than 500 employees, in most NAICS categories).

USDA does not have data on the potential adverse impacts on manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being designated, but believes that the impact will not be significant. Most of the product categories being designated in this rulemaking are typical consumer products widely used by the general public and by industrial/commercial establishments that are not subject to this rulemaking. Thus, USDA believes that the number of small businesses manufacturing non-biobased products within the product categories being designated and selling significant quantities of those products to government agencies affected by this rulemaking will be relatively low. Also, this final rule will not affect existing purchase orders and it will not preclude procuring agencies from continuing to purchase non-biobased products when biobased products do not meet the availability, performance, or reasonable price criteria. This final rule will also not preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new specifications or solicitation requirements for these products containing biobased materials.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, USDA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While not a factor relevant to determining whether the final rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, USDA has concluded that the effect of the rule will be to provide positive opportunities to businesses engaged in the manufacture of these biobased products. Purchase and use of these biobased products by procuring agencies will increase demand for these products and result in private sector development of new technologies, creating business and employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national economies.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that would have implications for these rights.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not involve administrative appeals.

This final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of this final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.

For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments.

Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect “one or more Indian tribes . . . the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or . . . the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Thus, no further action is required under Executive Order 13175.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection under this final rule is currently approved under OMB control number 0503-0011.

USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an electronic information system for posting information voluntarily submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to offer for preferred procurement under each designated product category. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ron Buckhalt at (202) 205-4008.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, that includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. USDA has submitted 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.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture is amending 7 CFR chapter XXXII as follows:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2177. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 49.5000B-1. The information is required to be maintained by the provider of indoor tanning services to accurately calculate the tax on indoor tanning services when those services are offered with other goods and services.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

This document amends the Excise Tax Procedural Regulations (26 CFR part 40) and the Facilities and Services Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 49) under section 5000B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 5000B was added to the Code by section 10907 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), to impose an excise tax on indoor tanning services. On June 15, 2010, temporary regulations relating to this topic and a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations were published in the Federal Register (TD 9486, 75 FR 33683; REG-112841-10, 75 FR 33740) (2010 regulations). Written and electronic comments were received and a public hearing was held on October 11, 2011. All comments were considered and are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. After considering the written comments and comments made at the public hearing, the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations by this Treasury decision and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed.

Public comments on the 2010 regulations identified two issues that the IRS and the Treasury Department will study further and on which the IRS and the Treasury Department request additional comments. Those issues, the treatment of bundled services and undesignated payment cards, are discussed later in this preamble. Comments on those issues should be submitted in writing by October 9, 2013 and can be mailed to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), Re: REG-112841-10, CC:PSI:B7, Room 5314, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. All comments received will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-112841-10).

Qualified Physical Fitness Facilities. Commenters questioned the exception for Qualified Physical Fitness Facilities (QPFFs) in the 2010 regulations.

The 2010 regulations exempt from the tax any membership fee paid to a QPFF that includes access to indoor tanning services. In a QPFF, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances, the predominant business or activity of the facility is to serve as a physical fitness facility. The 2010 regulations limit the definition of a QPFF to a business that does not charge separately for indoor tanning services, offer such services to the general public, or offer different membership fee rates based on access to indoor tanning services.

Commenters stated that an exception for QPFFs does not appear in section 5000B and suggested that there is no compelling reason to differentiate these facilities from other indoor tanning service facilities. Commenters argued that while other providers of bundled services must use a complicated method of determining the amount attributable to indoor tanning services (as described in § 49.5000B-1T(d)(3) of the 2010 regulations), QPFFs are exempt from the tax even though they provide the same indoor tanning services. Thus, these commenters suggested, the exception for QPFFs creates an unfair competitive advantage for some providers of indoor tanning services over others, and should not be included in the final regulations.

The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Access to indoor tanning services is incidental to a QPFF's predominant business or activity. Customers of a QPFF typically pay a monthly fee in exchange for access to all equipment in the QPFF, including any indoor tanning equipment. Requiring a QPFF to allocate its customers' monthly membership fees among tanning and non-tanning services under such an arrangement would be burdensome and difficult to administer. In contrast, non-QPFF providers of bundled goods and services typically offer indoor tanning services to customers as part of the purchase of a package of specific goods or services. This generally allows the provider to determine the portion of the purchase price that relates to the use of indoor tanning services by the customer and allocate the appropriate portion of the purchase price to those services.

Free indoor tanning services; bonus points. Commenters requested guidance on the application of the tax to free indoor tanning services and indoor tanning services that are sold at reduced rates.

The final regulations provide that the section 5000B tax only applies if an amount is paid for indoor tanning services. If services are provided at a reduced rate, the tax applies to the amount actually paid for the services. See Rev. Rul. 84-12 (1984-1 CB 211) and the rulings cited therein. Also consistent with Rev. Rul. 84-12, the final regulations do not apply the tax to indoor tanning services that are obtained by redemption of “bonus points” through a loyalty program or similar program. In the case of promotions that entitle a customer to a “free” tan with the purchase of a certain number of tans, the amount paid for the purchased tans reflects a reduced price for all of the tans rather than a package of tans at full price coupled with a “free” purchased tan. Thus, the tax is imposed on the purchase of the package of tans rather than on the redemption of the additional tan.

Bundled goods and services. If a provider (other than a QPFF) sells bundled services in which access to indoor tanning services (in a specified or unlimited amount) over a period of time is bundled with other goods and services, the 2010 regulations set out a formula to determine the amount reasonably attributable to indoor tanning services.

Commenters noted that there are no commercially available point-of-sale software programs that automatically calculate the tax on the sale of indoor tanning services that are bundled with other goods and services. Thus, providers must manually calculate the tax on these types of sales, a process that the commenters said is time consuming, expensive, and prone to error.

The final regulations do not change the rules for bundled goods and services. The statute imposes the tax on indoor tanning services; if those services are bundled with other goods and services, the provider must determine the amount of the payment for the bundled goods and services that is reasonably attributable to indoor tanning services. The 2010 regulations set forth a reasonable method for making this determination, which is retained with minor clarifications in the final regulations. However, the final regulations also authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue future guidance to provide additional options for making this determination. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on other reasonable methods for determining the amount of a payment for bundled goods and services that is reasonably attributable to indoor tanning services.

Undesignated payment cards. The 2010 regulations define an undesignated payment card as a gift certificate, gift card, or similar item that can be redeemed for goods or services that may, but do not necessarily, include indoor tanning services. Under the 2010 regulations, the tax is not imposed on the purchase of these cards; rather, the tax is imposed only when the card is redeemed specifically to pay for indoor tanning service.

Commenters noted that, in practice, a provider can collect the tax only when the card is bought and not when the card is redeemed for indoor tanning service. Thus, the commenters suggested that the tax be imposed on the purchase of an undesignated payment card. Providers could either estimate how much of the card will be used for indoor tanning service in the future or collect tax on the entire purchase price.

The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS welcome comments on this issue. The final regulations authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue future guidance to provide additional options for administering the tax with respect to undesignated payment cards.

Form 720. The temporary regulations require the tax to be reported and paid quarterly on Form 720, “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.” Commenters suggested that Form 720 is too complex or burdensome for the average provider to complete and file. These commenters request that the IRS issue a special tax return form specifically and exclusively for reporting the section 5000B tax.

The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Form 720 is the standard form used to report many excise taxes, including the other types of excise taxes collected from a customer upon the purchase of services, such as the taxes on communications services and transportation of persons and property by air. In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that creating a new form would add unnecessary complexity. For more information about reporting requirements, see § 40.6011(a)-1(a).

Membership and enrollment fees. The final regulations clarify that the tax is imposed on amounts paid for prepaid monthly membership and enrollment fees to a provider of indoor tanning services, other than a QPFF, even if a member does not use any indoor tanning services during the period to which the fee relates.

Some providers offer monthly membership programs through which customers receive a number of tanning sessions at a lower cost than would be charged for each session individually. Some of these providers charge customers an enrollment fee when the customers join a membership program. Typically, the customer pays the enrollment fee before paying the first monthly membership charge.

Some providers also impose fees on their customers to allow the customer to skip one or more months of membership dues without being charged an enrollment fee when the customer restarts the monthly membership. Amounts paid to a provider that temporarily suspend a periodic membership program are amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Because payment of these fees allows the customer to receive indoor tanning services at reduced prices, the final regulations clarify that these fees are subject to the section 5000B tax as amounts paid for indoor tanning services.

The IRS revenue ruling cited in this preamble is published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh PA, 15250-7954.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations are designed to accommodate the recordkeeping methods currently used by small entities that provide indoor tanning services. The regulations merely implement the tax imposed by section 5000B of the Code, and section 6001 of the Code already requires taxpayers to keep books and records sufficient to show whether or not they are liable for tax. The information necessary to prepare these records is readily available to providers, and this recordkeeping will take little additional time to complete. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of these regulations is Michael H. Beker, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 40, 49, and 602 are amended as follows:

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

The regulation for this marine event is located at 33 CFR 100.501, Table to §  100.501, section (a.) line 4.

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 immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The potential dangers posed by marine events conducted on the Atlantic Ocean, near Atlantic City, with other vessel traffic makes a special local regulation necessary to provide for the safety of participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have this regulation in effect during the event. In addition, it is impracticable to provide for a notice and comment period because the Coast Guard received late notice from the event planner of this change in date. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners.

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. The Coast Guard did not receive information from the event sponsor early enough to allow 30 days after publication before making this rule effective. This final rule is necessary to protect the public and race participants during the regatta, and therefore, must be effective by the start of the event on June 23, 2013.

Offshore Performance Association sponsors an annual offshore race held on the third Sunday in July on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean at Atlantic City, New Jersey.

The regulation listing annual marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District and special local regulations locations is 33 CFR 100.501. The Table to § 100.501 identifies special local regulations by COTP zone, with the COTP Delaware Bay zone listed in section “(a.)” of the Table. The Table to § 100.501, at section (a.) event Number “4” describes the enforcement date and regulated location for this marine event.

The date listed in the Table has the marine event on the third Sunday in July. However, this temporary rule changes the marine event date to the fourth Sunday in June.

A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the marine event. Due to the need for vessel control during the marine event vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, during the enforcement period, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

The Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in Table to § 100.501, section (a.) event Number 4, and insert this temporary regulation at Table to § 100.501, at section (a.) as event Number “14”, in order to reflect that the marine event will be held on June 23, 2013. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m.

The regulated area of this special local regulation includes all the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: southeasterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′50″ N, longitude 074°24′37″ W, to latitude 39°20′40″ N, longitude 074°23′50″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°19′33″ N, longitude 074°26′52″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′43″ N, longitude 074°27′40″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′50″ N, longitude 074°24′37″ W.

This special local regulation will temporarily restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the effective period. The regulated area is needed to control vessel traffic during the event for the safety of participants and transiting vessels.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Although this rule will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean off the shore of Atlantic City, New Jersey during the specified event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, this rulemaking changes the regulated area for the Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, Offshore Race for June 23, 2013 only and does not change the permanent regulated area that has been published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to § 100.501 at portion “a” event Number “4”. In some cases vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the Atlantic Ocean, off the shore of Atlantic City, where marine events are being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will only be in effect from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 23, 2013 in the regulated area. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the regulated area when it is safe to do so. In some cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the regulated area at various times, and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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 special local regulation within 33 CFR Part 100. It is necessary to provide for the safety of the general public and event participants from potential hazards associated with the movement of vessels near the event area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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 100 as follows:

On March 29, 2013, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this event in the Federal Register (78 FR 19155). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

On October 6, 2013, from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., Without Limits Coaching will sponsor “Swim the Loop” and “Motts Channel Sprint” on the waters adjacent to and surrounding Harbor Island in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The swim event will consist of up to 150 swimmers per event swimming a 1.3 mile course or a 3.5 mile course around Harbor Island in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Participants will enter at the Dockside Marina on the west bank of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway south of the U.S 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and swim north and clockwise around Harbor Island returning to the Dockside Marina. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during this event.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 550 yards north and south of the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge, mile 283.1, latitude 34°13′06″ North, longitude 077°48′44″ West, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.

To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during this event. Specifically, the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina will remain closed during the event on October 6, 2013, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. During the event, general navigation within the safety zone will be restricted, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area, with the exception of participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 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. Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the regulated area will be in effect for a limited time, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., on October 6, 2013. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. The regulated area will apply only to the section of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in the immediate vicinity of U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

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 will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on October 6, 2013.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be in effect for four hours from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. The regulated area applies only to the section of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Vessel traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the swim course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area once all swimmers are safely clear of navigation channels and vessel traffic areas. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the general public and event participants from potential hazards associated with movement of vessels near the event area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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 100 as follows:

On March 14, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC in the Federal Register (78 FR 16205). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

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. The Coast Guard did not receive information from the event sponsor early enough to both publish a NPRM and allow 30 days after publication before making this rule effective. The Coast Guard chose to notify the public and seek comment on this rule by publishing a NPRM. This final rule is necessary to protect the public and race participants during the regatta, and therefore, must be effective by the start of the event on June 22, 2013.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the ODBA Draggin' on the Waccamaw boat races.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013, and Sunday, June 23, 2013, the Outboard Drag Boat Association (ODBA) will host Draggin' on the Waccamaw, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races.

The special local regulation encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 11:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on June 22, 2012, through June 23, 2013. The special local regulation consists of a regulated area around vessels participating in the event. The regulated area is as follows: All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within an Imaginary line connecting the following points; starting at point 1 in position 33°39′11.46″ N 079°05′36.78″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.18″ N 079°05′47.76″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′39.48″ N 079°05′37.44″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′42.3″ N 079°05′30.6″ W; thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the event are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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 economic impact of this rule is anticipated to be significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (2) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the regulated area from 11:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on June 22, 2012, through June 23, 2013. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), 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 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Beaufort Water Festival in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 from 1:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m. on July 27, 2013.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701 no vessels or people may enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission to do so from the Captain of the Port. This temporary rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterway that is 700 ft wide by 2,600 ft in length, whose approximate corner coordinates are as follows: 32°25′47″ N/080°40′44″ W, 32°25′41″ N/080°40′14″ W, 32°25′35″ N/080°40′16″ W, 32°25′40″ N/080°40′46″ W.

Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

On March 22, 2013, the Coast Guard provided the public with notice and an opportunity to comment when it published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Northern New England,” in the Federal Register. (78 FR 17613). The comment period ended on May 21, 2013, with no comments.

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. There is insufficient time to undergo a 30 day delayed effective date and thus it is impracticable. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would also be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters from the hazardous nature of fireworks, high speed power boat races, and large gatherings of swimmers in the waterway.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 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, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones and regulated areas.

This rulemaking establishes special local regulations for power boat races and marine parades and safety zones for marine events involving fireworks displays and swim events on the navigable waters of the COTP Sector NNE Zone. This rule is necessary to protect waterway users from the dangers inherent to these activities.

This temporary rule establishes special local regulations and safety zones for eighteen events in the COTP Sector NNE Zone. Specific event names, locations, dates and times are listed below in the regulation text.

Because large numbers of spectator vessels are expected to congregate around the location of these events, these regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by them including vessels operating at high speeds and unexpected pyrotechnics detonation and burning debris.

This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

The Coast Guard has determined that these regulated areas will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to their temporary nature, limited size, and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated areas. The COTP will cause public notifications to be made by all appropriate means including but not limited to the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas will be of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore, vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the regulated areas. Vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP or designated representative.

Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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.

The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the designated regulated areas during the enforcement periods stated for each event listed below in the List of Subjects.

The temporary special local regulations and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the regulated areas will be of limited size and of short duration, and vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other portions of the waterways except for the areas designated as regulated areas. Additionally, notifications will be made before the effective period by all appropriate means, including but not limited to the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events.

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 safety zones. 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 Parts 100 and 165 as follows:

The Norfolk Southern Corporation, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5 to facilitate thermite welding on the rails.

Under the regular operating schedule, the Norfolk Southern #5 Railroad Bridge, mile 1.1, in Norfolk, VA, the draw must open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given. The draw normally is open and only closes for train crossings or periodic maintenance. The Norfolk Southern #5 Railroad Bridge, at mile 1.1, across the Elizabeth River (Eastern Branch) in Norfolk, VA, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 6 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16, 2013 the bridge will operate under normal operating schedule at all other times. The bridge normally operates in the open position with several vessels transiting a week and only closes when trains transit. Emergency openings cannot be provided. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Elizabeth River Eastern Branch but vessels may pass before 11 a.m. and after 1 p.m.

The Elizabeth River Eastern Branch is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and are advised to proceed with caution.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

San Joaquin County Department of Public Works has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Bacon Island Drawbridge, mile 8.6, over Middle River, near Stockton, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of approximately 8 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.171(a), the draw opens on signal from May 15 through September 15 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. From September 16 through May 14, the draw opens on signal from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Thursday through Monday. At all other times, the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given to the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works at Stockton. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 12:01 a.m. on September 30, 2013 to 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2013, due to structural maintenance work in replacing the approach deck slabs. The work will require loss of power to the bridge electrical systems.

This temporary deviation has been coordinated with commercial operators and various marinas. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.

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

The Route 136 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.221(c).

The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a 24 hour advance notice requirement for bridge openings to facilitate emergency repairs to the mechanical and electrical components at the bridge.

The emergency repairs are necessary to repair storm damage from Hurricane Sandy.

Under this temporary deviation at least a 24 hour advance notice shall be required for bridge openings at the Route 136 Bridge, mile 1.3, across the Saugatuck River at Westport, Connecticut, from June 2, 2013 through July 15, 2013.

The Saugatuck River is predominantly a recreational waterway. The bridge rarely opens during the time period this temporary deviation will be in effect.

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

The Atlantic Beach Bridge, across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e).

The owner of the bridge, Nassau County Bridge Authority, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate electrical and structural rehabilitation at the bridge.

The waterway has commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

Under this temporary deviation the draw of the Atlantic Beach Bridge at mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel shall open on signal as follows:

(1) From June 9, 2013 through September 30, 2013, Monday through Friday, the draw may operate a single span on signal, every two hours, on the even hour, between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. From 8 p.m. through 6 a.m. the draw may operate a single span on signal. On weekends and holidays from Friday at 8 p.m. through Monday at 6 a.m. the bridge shall open both spans every hour on the hour.

(2) From October 1, 2013 through December 1, 2013, the bridge shall operate a single span on signal at 6 a.m., 12 p.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m. and at any time between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. The draw shall open both spans at all times for commercial vessel traffic after at least a 48 hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

The Coast Guard contacted all known commercial waterway users regarding this deviation and no objections were received.

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

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

On September 16, 2004, a mudslide resulted from Hurricane Ivan's storm surge that toppled the Mississippi Canyon (MC) 20 Platform A. The platform's wells were covered by more than 100-feet of mud and sediment. As a result of structural damage, plumes containing crude oil and gas have been discharging into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a sheen on the surface of the water.

The responsible party for this incident has undertaken an operation to install a containment dome over the affected area, which would catch the oil rising from the sea floor. Many vessels continue to operate in the affected area. Anchoring, mooring, or loitering in the area above the containment dome could potentially damage the dome, or reduce its effectiveness.

The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register on April 29, 2013, for this Regulated Navigation Area (RNA). (78 FR 24987). As noted in that document, the center of this RNA was established to surround an oil wellhead that was leaking oil after structural damage from a hurricane and mudslide. However, the latitude and longitude of that oil platform were incorrectly noted. The correct center of the regulated navigation area established by the interim rule is 28°56′12.619″ N, 088°58′10.303″ W. This correction revises the latitude and longitude for the center of this RNA to accurately reflect the location of the oil wellhead.

Accordingly, 33 CFR part 165 is amended by making the following correcting amendment:

The Coast Guard will enforce the San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Display safety zones from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2013 through 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2013.

For Location 1, during the loading of the fireworks barges, while the barges are being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges is scheduled to take place from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on July 3, 2013, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. Towing of the barges from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place from 8 p.m. until 8:45 p.m. on July 4, 2013. During the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. until 9:55 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the fireworks barge will be located 1,000 feet off of Pier 39 in approximate position 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W (NAD 83). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8, this safety zone will be in effect from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2013 to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2013.

For Location 2, the fireworks will be launched from the San Francisco Municipal Pier. During the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. until 9:55 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the safety zone will apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch site within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position 37°48′38″ N, 122°25′28″ W (NAD 83). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8, this safety zone will be in effect from 9:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2013. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. on July 3, 2013, the fireworks barge will be loading off of Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′28″ N, 122°23′06″ W (NAD 83). From 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on July 3, 2013 the loaded barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Richmond Harbor in approximate position 37°54′41″ N, 122°21′02″ W (NAD 83). Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 3, 2013, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 37°54′41″ N, 122°21′02″ (NAD 83). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 11, this safety zone will be in effect from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2013.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).

In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barges to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. on June 29, 2013 until 8 p.m. on July 4, 2013 the fireworks barges will be loaded off of Incline Beach, near Incline Village, NV at approximate position 39°14′21″ N, 119°56′51″ W (NAD 83). From 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on July 4, 2013 the loaded barges will transit from Incline Beach to the launch site off of Incline Village, NV at approximate position 39°14′14″ N, 119°56′56″ W (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius 1,000 feet at approximate position 39°14′14″ N, 119°56′56″ W (NAD 83). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 22, this safety zone will be in effect from 7 a.m. on June 29, 2013 until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2013.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 12 p.m. on July 3, 2013 until 3 p.m. on July 4, 2013 the fireworks barge will be loaded off of Schneider Dock in Eureka, CA in approximate position 40°47′50″ N, 124°11′11″ W (NAD 83). From 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on July 4, 2013 the loaded barge will transit from Schneider Dock to the launch site off of Woodley Island near Eureka, CA at approximate position 40°48′29″ N, 124°10′06″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take begin at 10 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet at approximate position 40°48′29″ N, 124°10′06″ W (NAD 83). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 3, this safety zone will be in effect from 12 p.m. on July 3, 2013 until 10:40 p.m. on July 4, 2013.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's RERCs program, which is funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. It does so by conducting advanced engineering research, developing and evaluating innovative technologies, facilitating service delivery system changes, stimulating the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and providing training opportunities. RERCs seek to solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers to improvements in employment, community living and participation, and health and function outcomes of individuals with disabilities.

The general requirements for RERCs are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part 350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Does the Secretary Assist?).

Additional information on the RERCs program can be found at: www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

We published a notice of proposed priorities for this program in the Federal Register on March 8, 2013 (78 FR 14947). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing these particular priorities.

There are differences between the proposed priorities and the final priorities as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities, 13 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities.

We group issues according to the priority or priorities to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we generally do not address comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and changes in the priorities since publication of the notice of proposed priorities follows.

Comment: Eight commenters noted that this priority includes “communication aids” as one among many potential topics for research and development. Each of these commenters described the need for continued research and development on communication enhancement and augmentative and alternative communication interventions. These commenters noted that additional research is specifically needed to develop better measures of outcomes for communication enhancement treatments and interventions. These commenters requested that NIDRR create a priority for an RERC that is dedicated specifically to communication enhancement.

Discussion: NIDRR acknowledges the importance of communication enhancement technologies and augmentative and alternative communication interventions. The priority is intended to be broad enough to allow applicants to submit proposals for an RERC on communication enhancement and augmentative and alternative communication interventions, as well as on other important topics. As discussed in NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 (78 FR 20299) (Plan), NIDRR seeks to generate more field-initiated grant opportunities. With the priorities established in this notice, we encourage RERC applicants to propose and justify research and development across a wide range of potential topics in the broad area of rehabilitation strategies, techniques, and interventions. As described in our Plan, NIDRR anticipates holding grant competitions on a regular basis in this and the three other broad rehabilitation engineering areas described in this notice. Through this process, NIDRR aims to increase competition for RERC grants and to draw upon the field's expertise, knowledge, and creativity to optimize the quality and relevance of the rehabilitation engineering research and development that NIDRR funds.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters noted that this priority focuses primarily on the accessibility of information and communication technologies (ICT) and suggested that the title of this priority reflect this focus on access.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the title of this priority should be changed to reflect that the priority's focus on ICT accessibility.

Changes: NIDRR has revised the title of this priority to “RERC on Information and Communication Technologies Access.”

Comment: One commenter suggested that this priority focus on the engineering of low-cost, high-quality products that enhance the ability of individuals with disabilities to perform activities of daily living and to be more independent. The commenter suggested that the products generated by the RERC be adjustable, lightweight, durable, user-friendly, and low maintenance.

Discussion: NIDRR generally agrees with the comments about the importance of developing products that are adjustable, lightweight, durable, user-friendly, and low maintenance. At the same time, we recognize that achieving all of these qualities may not be feasible, depending on the intended use of the product and its target population or on the stage of research and development in a particular rehabilitation engineering subfield. Nothing in the priority precludes applicants from proposing research and development projects that focus on the design qualities identified by the commenter. However, we do not want to discourage important, innovative, or new research and development activities by requiring these design qualities in each of the products to be developed by this RERC. The peer review process will determine the merits of each proposal.

Changes: None.

NIDRR did not receive comments on this priority.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that NIDRR require applicants under each of the priorities to address the “stages of research” and the “stages of development” that are described in NIDRR's Plan.

Discussion: RERC grantees conduct both research and development projects. As discussed in the Plan, NIDRR is working with stakeholders to develop “stages of development” comparable to its “stages of research” for use by applicants and grantees. Because research and development tend to be interwoven in the RERCs program, we believe it would be premature to require applicants to identify their stages of research until we have developed the stages of development and clarified the interaction between the two. Once NIDRR completes this process, we anticipate requiring identification of stages of research and stages of development in RERC grant applications.

Changes: None.

Priority 1—RERC on Rehabilitation Strategies, Techniques, and Interventions.

Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies and strategies that will result in new or improved products, devices, and technological advances that are integrated into rehabilitation services in clinical or community settings. The RERC must be designed to improve outcomes of individuals with disabilities in one or more of the following domains: Employment, community living and participation, or health and function. Research and development topics under this priority may include but are not limited to: Virtual reality; therapy robots; telerehabilitation; recreational technology; health-related products and equipment; and cognitive, sensory, and communication aids.

Proposed Priority 2—RERC on Information and Communication Technologies Access.

Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies and strategies that will optimize accessibility and usability of one or more of the following: Telecommunications products; wireless technologies; technology interfaces; computer systems; software; and networks for individuals with disabilities. The RERC must be designed to improve outcomes of individuals with disabilities in one or more of the following domains: Employment, community living and participation, or health and function. Research and development topics under this priority may include but are not limited to: Telecommunication access in emergency situations; interoperability between current and next-generation telecommunication access; access to and use of wireless technologies; universal design approaches in future generations of wireless technologies; and accessibility of information technologies and electronic products by people with disabilities.

Proposed Priority 3—RERC on Individual Mobility and Manipulation.

Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies and strategies that will result in new or improved products, devices, or technological advances that allow individuals with disabilities to be more mobile and to manipulate their environments more efficiently and effectively. The RERC must be designed to improve outcomes of individuals with disabilities in one or more of the following domains: Employment, community living and participation, or health and function. Research and development topics under this priority may include but are not limited to: Equipment for personal mobility; assistive technology for manipulation; and prosthetics and orthotics.

Proposed Priority 4—RERC on Physical Access and Transportation.

Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies and strategies that will result in one or more of the following: The continued promotion of universal design and the planning of accessible buildings, homes, parks, neighborhoods, and cities, or the accessibility and safety of transportation options. The RERC must be designed to improve outcomes of individuals with disabilities in one or more of the following domains: Employment, community living and participation, or health and function. Research and development topics under this priority may include but are not limited to: Design and modification of the built environment; and the accessibility, safety, affordability, and independent use of transportation options (including public transportation, commercial transportation, and personal vehicles).

Under each priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(1) Increased technical and scientific knowledge relevant to its research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by conducting high-quality, rigorous research and development projects.

(2) Increased innovation in technologies, products, environments, performance guidelines, and monitoring and assessment tools applicable to its research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome through the development and testing of these innovations.

(3) Improved research capacity in its research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by collaborating with the relevant industry, professional associations, institutions of higher education, health care providers, or educators, as appropriate.

(4) Improved usability and accessibility of products and environments in its research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by emphasizing the principles of universal design in its product research and development. For this purpose, “universal design” means the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

(5) Improved awareness and understanding of cutting-edge developments in technologies within its research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by identifying and communicating with relevant stakeholders, including NIDRR, individuals with disabilities, their representatives, disability organizations, service providers, professional journals, manufacturers, and other interested parties regarding trends and evolving product concepts related to its research area.

(6) Increased dissemination of research in the research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by providing technical assistance to relevant public and private organizations, individuals with disabilities, employers, and schools on policies, guidelines, and standards related to its research area.

(7) Increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the marketplace. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by developing and implementing a plan for ensuring that all technologies developed by the RERC are made available to the public. The technology transfer plan must be developed in the first year of the project period in consultation with the NIDRR-funded Disability Rehabilitation Research Project, Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.

In addition, under each priority, the RERC must—

• Have the capability to design, build, and test prototype devices and assist in the technology transfer and knowledge translation of successful solutions to relevant production and service delivery settings;

• Evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products, instrumentation, or assistive devices;

• Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a plan that describes how it will include, as appropriate, individuals with disabilities or their representatives in all phases of its activities, including research, development, training, dissemination, and evaluation;

• Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a plan to disseminate its research results to individuals with disabilities and their representatives; disability organizations; service providers; professional journals; manufacturers; and other interested parties. In meeting this requirement, each RERC may use a variety of mechanisms to disseminate information, including state-of-the-science conferences, webinars, Web sites, and other dissemination methods; and

• Coordinate research projects of mutual interest with relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final priorities only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program have been well established over the years, as projects similar to the RERCs have been completed successfully. Establishing new RERCs based on the final priorities will generate new knowledge through research and development and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new RERCs will provide support and assistance for NIDRR grantees as they generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform regular activities of their choice in the community.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's ARRT program, which is funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to provide advanced research training and experience to individuals with doctorates, or similar advanced degrees, who have clinical or other relevant experience. ARRT projects train rehabilitation researchers, including researchers with disabilities, with particular attention to research areas that support the implementation and objectives of the Rehabilitation Act, and that improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.

Additional information on the ARRT program can be found at: www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#ARRT.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18933). That notice contained our reasons for proposing the particular priority and background information, including on NIDRR's major domains as discussed in NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 (78 FR 20299).

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, we received two comments, but neither was specific to the proposed ARRT priority. We do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority. There are no differences between the proposed priority and this final priority.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a new priority for the Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training (ARRT) program. For FY 2013, and potential subsequent years, ARRT projects must provide advanced research training to eligible individuals to enhance their capacity to conduct high-quality multidisciplinary rehabilitation and disability research to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in one of NIDRR's major domains of individual well-being: (a) Community living and participation, (b) employment, or (c) health and function.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this final priority only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years, as projects similar to the one envisioned by the final priority have been completed successfully. Establishing new ARRT projects based on the final priority would strengthen the capacity of the rehabilitation and disability field to train qualified individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to conduct high-quality, advanced multidisciplinary research across all of NIDRR's major domains of community living and participation, employment, and health and function, and thereby contribute to advancing knowledge and solving problems encountered by individuals with disabilities of all ages.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area that will replace MOBILE-based budgets in the SIP. The Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2007 (72 FR 27644). MOBILE6.2-based budgets for the Ohio portion of the area were approved in that action. Upon the effective date of approval of the MOVES-based budgets, they must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the Ohio portion of the area as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. See the official release of the MOVES2010 emissions model (75 FR 9411-9414) for background, and section II. (c) below for details.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These SIP revisions and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants, including precursors. Transportation plans and projects “conform” to (i.e., are consistent with) the SIP when they will not cause or contribute to air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.

EPA previously approved MOBILE6.2-based volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) budgets for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area. The area's ozone maintenance plan established 2009 and 2018 budgets that demonstrated a reduction in emissions from the monitored attainment year of 2004.

The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating highway emissions. EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 on March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411). Use of the MOVES model is required for regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013.

MOVES2010a was used to estimate emissions in the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio area for the same milestone years as the original budgets in the SIP. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is revising the budgets using the latest planning assumptions, including population and employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Updating the budgets with MOVES2010a allows the area to continue to show conformity to the SIP in plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects. The interagency consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.

On December 7, 2012, OEPA submitted final budgets based on MOVES2010a that cover the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area. Ohio received no comments during the public review and comment period.

The new MOVES2010a based budgets are for the years 2009 and 2018, for both VOCs and NOX, and are detailed in table 3 of this notice. Ohio has also provided emissions per sector, including mobile emissions based on MOVES2010a, for the 2004 attainment year, the 2009 interim budget year, and the 2018 maintenance year. The emissions reduction from all sectors between the years 2004 and 2018 is also shown. Emissions per sector and the combined emissions reduction for VOC and NOX for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio area are shown in tables 1 and 2. In tables 1 and 2, for on-road emissions of both VOC and NOX for the years 2009 and 2018, a 25% safety margin has been applied.1

The Belmont-Ohio Marshall Regional Council Metropolitan Planning Organization has added a safety margin that is only a portion of the attainment margin available for NOX and VOCs to the budgets for 2009 and 2018. As shown in tables 1 and 2, the submittal demonstrates how the area's emissions decline from the attainment year of 2004 to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 ozone standard in the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio area. Further, Ohio's submittal contains an approach where Ohio and West Virginia maintain conformity with separate budgets for their respective portions of the area. The net result of these approaches will be a total emissions level for the Wheeling area that is expected to provide for the area's continued attainment. An appropriate safety margin for NOX and VOCs was established by the interagency consultation group, which consists of representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, OEPA, Ohio Department of Transportation, and EPA. The submitted budgets for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio area are shown in table 3 below.

EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g., reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance). The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110. In addition, adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity purposes.

Areas can revise their budgets and inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For more information, see EPA's latest “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models. Ohio's December 7, 2012, submittal meets this requirement as described in the next section.

The December 7, 2012, SIP revision request for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance plan seeks to revise only the on-road mobile source inventories. OEPA has certified that the control strategies remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. OEPA also finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) have not changed significantly from the original submittal. This is supported by the monitoring data for the Wheeling area, which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

OEPA's submittal affirms that the total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) as shown in tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that emissions in the Wheeling, Ohio area continue to decline and remain below the attainment levels.\

Ohio has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Wheeling, Ohio area that are clearly identified in the submittal. The budgets are displayed in table 3.

EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Ohio for use in determining transportation conformity in the Wheeling, Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance area. EPA evaluated the MOVES-based budgets submitted on December 7, 2012, using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of the state's submittal and SIP requirements.

Before submitting the revised budgets, OEPA has shown that it followed all necessary conformity procedures. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in the submittal. The budgets, when considered with other emissions sources, are consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the appendix to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the Belmont-Ohio-Marshall Transportation Study to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model run. The state has documented that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e. area, non-road, and point) continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.

Ohio's submission confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard because the total emissions in the revised SIP (including MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources) continue to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan, as shown in tables 1 and 2 above. The budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.

Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA has determined that the SIP will continue to meet the requirements if the motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a-based inventories.

Upon the effective date of the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.

EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the replacement MOVES2010-based budgets for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance plan, as submitted on December 7, 2012. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 12, 2013 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 11, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 12, 2013.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Lima, Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area that will replace MOBILE-based budgets in the SIP. The Lima, Ohio area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2007 (72 FR 27648), and MOBILE6.2-based budgets were approved in that action. Upon the effective date of approval of the MOVES-based budgets, they must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. See the official release of the MOVES2010 emissions model (75 FR 9411-9414) for background, and section II.(c) below for details.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These SIP revisions and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants, including precursors. Transportation plans and projects “conform” to (i.e., are consistent with) the SIP when they will not cause or contribute to air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.

EPA previously approved budgets for the Lima, Ohio, 8-hour ozone maintenance area for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The area's ozone maintenance plan established 2009 and 2018 budgets that demonstrated a reduction in emissions from the monitored attainment year of 2004.

The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating highway emissions. EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 on March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411). Use of the MOVES model is required for regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013.

MOVES2010a was used to estimate emissions in the Lima area for the same milestone years as the original budgets in the SIP. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is revising the budgets using the latest planning assumptions, including population and employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Updating the budgets with MOVES2010a allows the area to continue to show conformity to the SIP in plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects. The interagency consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.

On January 11, 2013, Ohio submitted final budgets based on MOVES2010a that cover the Lima area. Ohio received no comments during the public review and comment period.

The new MOVES2010a based budgets are for the years 2009 and 2018, for both VOCs and NOX, and are detailed later in this notice. Ohio also provided Lima's total emissions, including mobile emissions based on MOVES2010a, for the 2004 attainment year, the 2009 interim budget year, and the 2018 maintenance year. The combined emissions reduction from all sectors between the years 2004 and 2018 is shown as well. Total emissions include point, area, non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources. The total emissions and combined emissions reduction from all sectors from 2004 to 2018 for VOC and NOX for each area is shown in tables 1 and 2. As noted in tables 1 and 2, for on-road emissions of both VOC and NOX for the years 2009 and 2018, a 15% safety margin 1 has been applied to reach the values shown.

The Lima Allen County Regional Planning Commission has added only a portion of the overall safety margin available for NOX and VOCs to the budgets for 2009 and 2018. As shown in tables 1 and 2, the submittal demonstrates how the area's combined emissions decline from the attainment year of 2004 to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the Lima, Ohio area. An appropriate safety margin for NOX and VOCs was established by the interagency consultation group, which consists of representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, OEPA, Ohio Department of Transportation, and EPA. The submitted budgets for the Lima, Ohio area are addressed later in this notice.

EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g., reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance). The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110. In addition, adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity purposes.

Areas can revise their budgets and inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For more information, see EPA's latest “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models. The submittal meets this requirement as described below in the next section.

The January 11, 2013, SIP revision request for the Lima, Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance plan seeks to revise only the on-road mobile source inventories. OEPA has certified that the control strategies remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. OEPA finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) have not changed significantly from the original submittal. This is confirmed by the monitoring data for the Lima area, which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

OEPA's submittal confirms that the total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) as shown in tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that emissions in the Lima, Ohio area continue to decline and remain below the attainment levels.

Ohio has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Lima, Ohio area that are clearly identified in the submittal. The budgets are displayed in table 3.

EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Ohio for use in determining transportation conformity in the Lima, Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance area. EPA evaluated the MOVES-based budgets submitted on January 11, 2013, using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of the state's submittal and SIP requirements.

Before submitting the revised budgets, OEPA has shown that it followed all necessary conformity procedures. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in the submittal. The budgets, when considered with other emissions sources, are consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the appendix to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the Lima Allen County Regional Planning Commission to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model run. The state has documented that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e. area, non-road, and point) continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.

Ohio's submission confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard because the total emissions in the revised SIP (including MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources) continue to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan, as shown in tables 1 and 2. The budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level. As table 3 shows, the submitted budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.

Based on our review of the January 11, 2013, submittal, EPA has determined that the SIP will continue to meet the requirements if the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a inventories.

Upon the effective date of the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.

EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the replacement MOVES2010-based budgets for the Lima, Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance plan, as submitted on January 11, 2013. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 12, 2013 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 11, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 12, 2013.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

EPA is taking final action on administrative changes to the Maryland SIP. On November 15, 2012, Maryland submitted a SIP revision requesting removal of an obsolete Consent Decree for the Allegany County Board of Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School since the school's coal-fired boiler was demolished in 2007. EPA determined that the revision was a minor SIP revision without any substantive changes and complied with all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations concerning such SIP revisions. EPA approved this revision through Letter Notice to Maryland dated February 6, 2013 consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA's Notice of Procedural Changes on SIP processing published on January 19, 1989 at 54 FR 2214 and consistent with the procedures outlined in an April 6, 2011 memo from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, regarding Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation. Today's action completes the February 6, 2013 administrative amendment to the SIP by removing the Consent Order entry for Beall Jr./Sr. High School from the 40 CFR 52.1070(d) table.

EPA is taking final action on administrative changes to the Maryland SIP. EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). With respect to the SIP revision described above, today's administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” because the revisions are administrative and non-substantive in nature. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notice of the updated Maryland SIP. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between state and Federally-approved rules. EPA has determined that these changes will not relax the SIP or adversely impact air emissions.

Under the Clean Air Act (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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). In taking action on this SIP revision, EPA already made such a finding. Thus, the SIP revisions announced in this notice became effective upon EPA's February 6, 2013 Letter Notice to Maryland. Today's administrative action simply codifies a provision which is already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this action in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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 to remove the obsolete Consent Decree for the Allegany County Board of Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland proposing approval of three SIP revisions related to Maryland's LEV program. The first of these Maryland SIP revisions was submitted to EPA on December 20, 2007 (#07-16) and included Maryland's Low Emission Vehicle Program, as adopted by the state in 2007. On November 12, 2010, Maryland submitted a revision to the 2007 SIP submittal (#10-08) to amend its Clean Car Program rules to incorporate changes made by California to its LEV regulations since Maryland's initial adoption of the program in 2007. On June 22, 2011, Maryland submitted another SIP revision (#11-05) consisting of updates to Maryland's program regulations adopting additional changes made by California to its own rules since Maryland's regulatory changes made as part of the 2010 SIP submittal. On March 22, 2013, Maryland submitted a letter to EPA formally withdrawing a portion of the SIP revision submitted June 22, 2011. Specifically, Maryland requested withdrawal of a section of its LEV program rule (COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17)), which incorporated by reference section 2030 of Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas retrofit systems.

A detailed description of Maryland's and California's Low Emission Vehicle program is provided in the NPR published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), and will not be repeated here. However, a brief summary of Maryland's SIP revision is provided below.

Maryland adopted into law the Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, the purpose of which was to implement California's LEV program in Maryland. The purpose of doing so was to improve ambient air quality in Maryland. This statute compelled the Maryland Department of Environment to adopt a rule in November 2007, which established a new Maryland regulatory chapter COMAR 26.11.34, entitled “Low Emission Vehicle Program.”

The regulation requires that 2011 and newer model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less that are sold in Maryland as new cars, or that are transferred in Maryland) meet the applicable California LEVII emissions standards. The objectives of the program are twofold. The first is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which are ground-level ozone precursor pollutants. The program relies on decreasing fleet average emission standards, applicable to each vehicle manufacturer each year. This program uses varying standards established by California, ranging from LEV standards to zero emission vehicle (ZEV) standards, which are the most stringent standards set. In between these fall: Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV), Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (SULEV), Partial Zero Emission Vehicles (PZEV), and Advanced Technology-Partial Zero Emission Vehicles (AT-PZEV). Each manufacturer complies by selling a mix of vehicles meeting any of these standards, as long as their sales-weighted, overall average of the various standard sets meets the overall fleet average and ZEV requirements. Maryland has adopted California's second generation of LEV program rules, or LEV II, which were approved by California on October 28, 1999, and became effective in California on November 27, 1999. Maryland has not adopted or submitted to EPA for SIP approval subsequently adopted California rules, including California's LEV III program rules.

The second objective of Maryland's LEV program is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from subject new vehicles purchased for use in Maryland. The GHG program also makes use of a fleet average compliance method (similar in methodology to that of the non-methane organic gas (NMOG) fleet average standard portion of the LEV program), which serves as a means to reduce ground level ozone and air toxics pollution. Overall compliance is demonstrated by showing that the entire fleet of vehicles produced by each manufacturer (as distributed within the allowable standard sets) meets the specified fleet average NMOG and GHG standards.

Maryland initially adopted regulations .01 to .14 under COMAR 26.11.34, which is a new chapter entitled “Low Emission Vehicle Program.” Maryland formally submitted a SIP revision for the Maryland Clean Car Program to EPA on December 20, 2007.

Maryland subsequently amended regulation .02 (entitled “Incorporation by Reference”) of COMAR 26.11.34 via a proposed state action published in the Maryland Register on August 14, 2009, followed by a final action published on November 6, 2009. Maryland submitted this amendment to EPA as a SIP revision on November 12, 2010.

Maryland once more amended regulation .02 (Incorporation by Reference) of COMAR 26.11.34. Maryland submitted a SIP revision to EPA on June 22, 2011 to amend the prior SIP revisions to reflect this most recent state regulatory amendment to the Maryland LEV program rule. On March 22, 2013, Secretary Summers of the Maryland Department of the Environment submitted a letter to EPA's Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin formally withdrawing a portion of the June 22, 2011 SIP revision.

The specific requirements and other details of Maryland's LEV program SIP revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received adverse comments during the public comment period on our August 23, 2012 NPR. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section III of this action.

Comment: The commenter challenges Maryland's authority to adopt, by reference, California's motor vehicle regulations for alternative fuel aftermarket systems, found in California's Code of Regulations (CCR), at 13 CCR 2030. The commenter argues that the authority in section 177 of the CAA allowing other states to adopt California's standards (which are waived from preemption under CAA section 209(b)) is limited to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, and that this authority does not extend to adoption of California's regulations governing aftermarket alternative fuel systems. Further, the commenter argues that CAA section 209(c) preempts states other than California from adopting aftermarket parts regulations when EPA has acted on its authority to regulate such parts under Federal law. The commenter argues that the portion of California's regulation (13 CCR 2030) which Maryland has incorporated by reference has not been updated in many years and is functionally outdated and conflicts in some aspects with more recent Federal rules on the subject.

Response: On March 22, 2013, Maryland officially withdrew the portion of Maryland's LEV Program SIP Revision #11-05 which this commenter is addressing. Specifically, Maryland requested withdrawal of COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), which served to adopt by reference § 2030 of Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the CCR. EPA is taking final rulemaking action on the remaining portions of the Maryland SIP submittals from December 20, 2007, November 12, 2010, and June 22, 2011. Because Maryland has withdrawn this portion of the SIP and because EPA is not taking any final rulemaking action on COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), the commenter's arguments related to CAA sections 177 and 209 are not relevant to this final action.

Comment: Several commenters generally supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new light to medium duty vehicles, per Maryland's LEV program. One commenter expressed disappointment that Federal law under the CAA limits states choices to adoption of either California new vehicle standards or Federal standards, rather than allowing states to adopt their own more stringent standards. The commenter argues that the current pace in limiting GHG emissions is insufficient to limit climate change or to ameliorate damage already done.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' support for clean vehicle programs and the commensurate GHG benefits resulting from adoption of a LEV program. With respect to states' authority to adopt their own standards different from Federal new vehicle standards or those of California, Congress explicitly limited this authority with the prohibition language of section 209 of the CAA. That section states that “no State or political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines subject to this part.” That same section of the CAA allows the Administrator to waive that prohibition for California, which had already adopted standards to control new motor vehicle emissions prior to March 30, 1966. Further, section 177 of the CAA allows any state with an approved SIP plan to adopt and enforce standards for new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines that are identical to California standards for which a waiver has been granted, if specified lead time requirements are met. Congress was explicit in the relevant CAA authority of their intent to grant states the option to adopt either California or Federal vehicle emission standards—and also to prohibit states from independently adopting or enforcing any third set of vehicle standards.

EPA is approving three SIP revisions submitted by Maryland with respect to Maryland's adoption of a Low Emission Vehicle Program into the Maryland SIP. These SIP revisions were submitted on December 20, 2007; November 12, 2010; and June 22, 2011. EPA is excluding from final approval COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), as Maryland formally requested withdrawal of that regulatory provision in a letter to EPA dated March 22, 2013.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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 to approve the Maryland Low Emission Vehicle Program into the Maryland SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On March 20, 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of two amendments to the Virginia Administrative Code: (1) an amendment to the list of nonattainment areas in section 9VAC5-20-204, and (2) an amendment to the 1997 NAAQS for ozone specified in section 9VAC5-30-55. The first is an amendment that reflects EPA's rulemaking action on May 21, 2012 to establish initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2008 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087). In this rulemaking action, EPA designated the Northern Virginia nonattainment area as “marginal” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The second amendment reflects a separate EPA rulemaking action also made on May 21, 2012, in which the EPA provided for the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes one year after the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30160). For Virginia, one year after the effective date is July 20, 2013.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . . ” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP to incorporate the following two amendments: (1) An amendment to the list of nonattainment areas in section 9VAC5-20-204, and (2) an amendment to the 1997 NAAQS for ozone, for the purposes of transportation conformity, specified in section 9VAC5-30-55. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on August 12, 2013 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 11, 2013. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action, revising the Virginia SIP to include an amendment to the list of nonattainment areas, and an amendment to the 1997 NAAQS for ozone for the purposes of transportation conformity may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On March 21, 2011, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA promulgated SSI EGs and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from existing SSI units. See 76 FR 15404. EPA codified these guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM. They include a model rule at 40 CFR §§ 60.5085 through 62.5250 that States may use to develop their own plans. Under that rule, EPA has defined an “SSI unit,” in part, as any device that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 40 CFR 60.5250

Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA is required to develop regulations for existing sources of noncriteria pollutants (i.e., a pollutant for which there is no national ambient air quality standard) whenever EPA promulgates a standard for a new source. This would include SSIs. Section 111(d) plans are subject to EPA review and approval.

Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the EGs at subpart MMMM, States with SSIs must submit to EPA plans that implement the EGs. The plans must be at least as protective as the EGs, which are not Federally enforceable until EPA approves them (or promulgates a Federal Plan for implementation and enforcement).

40 CFR part 60, subpart B contains general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of State Plans for subject facilities under section 111(d), which would include SSIs. On February 27, 2013, Indiana submitted its SSI State Plan, which EPA received on March 1, 2013. This submission followed public hearings for preliminary adoption of the State rule on May 2, 2012 and for final adoption on August 1, 2012. The State adopted the final rule on October 31, 2012 and it became effective on November 1, 2012. The plan includes State rule 326 IAC 11-10, which establishes emission standards for existing SSI.

The State submittal is based on the SSI EGs. As set forth in section 129 of the Act and in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and MMMM, the State Plan addresses the nine minimum required elements, as follows:

1. An inventory of affected SSI units, including those that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. Indiana has provided this.

2. An inventory of the emissions from affected SSI units. Indiana has provided this.

3. Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. Indiana has provided a compliance schedule and a compliance date of December 21, 2015.

4. Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and qualification requirements and operating limits for affected SSI units that are at least as protective as the EGs. Indiana has provided this.

5. Performance testing, recordkeeping and reporting and requirements. Indiana has provided this.

6. Certification that the hearing on the state plan was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. Indiana has provided this.

7. A provision for State progress reports to EPA. Indiana has stated that it will submit an annual report that will include updates to the inventory, any enforcement activities and submission of copies of technical reports on all performance testing on designated facilities. The Air Facility System will be used to submit information pertaining to emissions, inspections, status of compliance, dates of performance testing, and enforcement actions.

8. Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that the State selected for implementing the EGs. Indiana has provided a detailed list which identified the enforceable mechanisms.

9. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the SSI State Plan. Indiana has provided a detailed list which demonstrated that it has such legal authority. This includes the legal authority to incorporate by reference Federal emission guidelines provisions, as confirmed by an Indiana Attorney General's Opinion letter dated February 21, 2013.

EPA evaluated the SSI State Plan and related information submitted by Indiana for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations and policy. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that the State Plan meets all applicable requirements and, therefore, is approving it.

EPA is approving the State Plan which Indiana submitted on February 27, 2013, for the control of emissions from existing SSI sources in the State. EPA is publishing this approval notice without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan in the event adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 12, 2013 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 11, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 12, 2013.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a section 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2013. 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 approving Indiana's section 111(d)/129 plan revision for SSI sources may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

IMLS amends 45 CFR part 1180 to remove outdated regulations and make minor technical amendments to reflect Congress' reauthorization of the Institute of Museum and Library Services with the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010, Public Law 111-340 (December 22, 2010), as further amended by the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, Public Law 112-166 (August 10, 2012). These revisions are meant to fulfill the Institute's responsibility to its eligible grant applicants by ensuring that all regulations, policies, and procedures are up-to-date. The regulations being removed include regulations relating to programs and requirements no longer in existence at the Institute as a result of both agency practice and the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010, Public Law 111-340 (December 22, 2010), as further amended by the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, Public Law 112-166 (August 10, 2012). In the interests of economy of administration, and because all of the regulations to be removed are outdated and the technical amendments are minor, they are included in one rulemaking vehicle. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. There is good cause for making this action final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the rule contains minor technical amendments that provide agency applicants and grantees with greater clarity and additional flexibility.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Institute must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The rule removes a number of outdated regulations and makes technical amendments to reflect Congress' reauthorization of the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010, Public Law 111-340 (December 22, 2010), as further amended by the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, Public Law 112-166 (August 10, 2012). As such, it does not impose a compliance burden on the economy generally or on any person or entity. Accordingly, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” from an economic standpoint, and it does not otherwise create any inconsistencies or budgetary impacts to any other agency or Federal Program.

Because this rule removes outdated regulations and make certain technical amendments, the Institute has determined in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) review that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it simply makes technical amendments and removes outdated regulations.

This rule is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, since it removes existing outdated regulations and makes only technical amendments to reflect Congress' reauthorization of the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010, Public Law 111-340 (December 22, 2010), as further amended by the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, Public Law 112-166 (August 10, 2012). An OMB form 83-1 is not required.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. No rights, property or compensation has been, or will be, taken. A takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Institute has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Institute has evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential negative effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq., the Institute of Museum and Library Services amends 45 CFR part 1180 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket No. 10-26, adopted May 1, 2013, and released May 2, 2013, FCC 13-59. The full text of the Report and Order is available on the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of the Report and Order also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; email FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.

1. The Report and Order modified the definition of “auditory assistance device” in part 15 of the Commission's rules to expand the permissible uses of these devices beyond solely providing auditory assistance to persons with disabilities (e.g., amplification of sounds for the hard of hearing and audio description for the blind) to include simultaneous translation for anyone at any location. This action harmonized the part 15 definition of “auditory assistance device” with the definition of “auditory assistance communications” in part 95 of the Commission's rules. Under this expanded definition, part 15 auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-73 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz (72-76 MHz) bands on an unlicensed basis may provide auditory assistance or simultaneous translation, or both, to anyone at any location.

2. The Report and Order also lowered the limit for part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions to the limits that are provided in § 15.209 of the Commission's rules to help reduce the likelihood that the unwanted emissions from increased use of these devices for simultaneous translation will degrade the reception of very high frequency television (VHF TV) channels 2-4 (54-72 MHz) and 5-6 (76-88 MHz) and help improve the reception of VHF TV service.

3. On September 9, 2011, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Auditory Assistance Device NPRM) in this proceeding in which it proposed to modify the part 15 definition of “auditory assistance device” to expand the permissible uses of these devices to include simultaneous language interpretation by any person at any location, in the same manner as permitted under part 95 for Low Power Radio Service stations that operate in the 216-217 MHz band. The Commission took this action in response to a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Williams Sound Corporation (Williams Sound), a provider of wireless auditory assistance devices.

4. In the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages and potential benefits of expanding the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices and any qualitative or quantitative costs associated with this proposal. It also sought comment on whether increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous language interpretation would increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands and whether additional safeguards or changes to the technical requirements for these devices would be necessary to prevent harmful interference to those services. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether a more restrictive limit for part 15 auditory assistance devices' out-of-band emissions is needed to prevent harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands and improve the reception of VHF TV channels 2-6.

5. Part 15 auditory assistance devices may operate in a full duplex mode of operation using necessary bandwidths up to 200 kilohertz wide. All fundamental emissions must be contained wholly within the 72-73 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz bands with a maximum field strength of 80 millivolts per meter (mV/m) measured at a distance of 3 meters, which is equivalent to a maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 1.2 milliwatts (mW). The field strength of any unwanted emissions (emissions outside of the 200 kilohertz necessary bandwidth) must not exceed 1,500 microvolts per meter (μV/m) measured at a distance of 3 meters, which is equivalent to an ERP of 0.4 microwatts (μW). In the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, the Commission asked what out-of-band emissions limit would be appropriate—the § 15.209 limit, the unlicensed TV bands device limit, or some other limit—what would be an appropriate transition period for compliance, and whether currently approved part 15 auditory assistance devices should be grandfathered for a limited time or permanently. In the Report and Order, the Commission noted that although it used the term “out-of-band” emissions in the Auditory Assistance Devices NPRM when referring to emissions outside of the frequency bands in which the auditory assistance devices operate (paras. 20 and 21), the correct term to describe the emissions outside of the necessary bandwidth of the transmitting system is “unwanted” emissions, and so it used the term “unwanted” emissions where appropriate throughout the Report and Order.

6. In the Report and Order, the Commission modified the definition of “auditory assistance device” in part 15 of its rules to expand the permissible uses of these devices to include simultaneous language interpretation. The expanded definition permits the use of part 15 auditory assistance devices by any person requiring translation services at any location. The Commission concluded that the public interest would be served by expanding the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous translation. It also concluded that the benefits of expanding service to the public far outweighed any additional costs associated with implementing these changes. The majority of commenters, providers of auditory assistance devices and/or services, submitted that expanding the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous interpretation would be in the public interest. The majority of commenters also agreed with the Commission's tentative assessment that expanding the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous translation would not increase costs to the public.

7. The Commission agreed that expanding the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous translation was in the public interest and would not increase costs. It determined that permitting part 15 auditory assistance devices to be used for simultaneous translation could reduce the costs of translation services by increasing competition and allowing providers to use less expensive RF equipment for simultaneous translation instead of higher-cost infrared technology equipment. It also determined that expanding these devices permissible uses would likely reduce auditory assistance equipment costs, result in economies of scale in production and marketing, and introduce more competition for such devices. The Commission decided that this action would promote more flexible and efficient use of part 15 auditory assistance devices by allowing them to be used for either auditory assistance or simultaneous translation, or both, without impeding their ability to provide auditory assistance to persons with disabilities. It also decided that permitting such use of these devices would increase the comprehension of persons that need language translation in public venues while lowering the ambient noise level for all listeners, thereby enhancing the auditory experience of all listeners.

8. The Commission was not persuaded that allowing part 15 auditory assistance devices to be used for simultaneous language interpretation would penalize entities that provide translation services via higher-cost infrared technology equipment. Instead, it determined that the marketplace provides the best measure for determining which technology is optimal for addressing the translation needs of users. This approach would permit each interpreter to analyze customers' needs in its market area and employ the technology that best meets their needs. For example, some customers may prefer the inherent security and privacy of infrared technology over the capabilities of RF technology. The Commission also decided that part 15 auditory assistance devices' use of the 72-76 MHz bands should not be limited only to providing assistance to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Although part 15 auditory assistance devices had previously been restricted under the Commission's rules to solely providing aural assistance to persons with disabilities, unlicensed use of the 72-76 MHz bands is not restricted under the ADA or the Communications Act of 1934 to only uses covered by the ADA.

9. The Commission also concluded that permitting part 15 auditory assistance devices to be used for simultaneous language interpretation would not, per se, increase the potential for harmful interference (i.e., interference that seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radicommunication service) to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands, especially since no commenter had expressed concern that increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous interpretation would cause harmful interference to authorized services. As the Commission noted in the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, the interference potential of a part 15 auditory assistance device is generally unrelated to the number of users or type of use. Rather, the interference potential is a function of the device's operating characteristics and parameters. There is no difference in the interference potential of a part 15 auditory assistance device whether it is used for auditory assistance or simultaneous translation.

10. The Commission agreed with commenters that the existing limit for part 15 auditory assistance devices' fundamental emissions was already sufficient to prevent increased use of these devices for simultaneous translation from causing harmful interference to authorized services. The absence of any reports of harmful interference to date supported this conclusion. It also noted that although the locations and channels where part 15 auditory assistance devices are operated may increase by expanding their permissible uses to include simultaneous translation, the market for and use of these devices should remain limited and they would not be ubiquitously deployed. The Commission expected that this outcome, coupled with their relatively low fundamental emissions limit, would help prevent increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous translation from causing harmful interference to authorized services.

11. The Commission was not persuaded that increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous translation would interfere with other part 15 auditory assistance devices providing auditory assistance by “crowding” the frequencies. As noted, these devices' fundamental signals may transmit in bandwidths up to 200 kilohertz wide in the 72-73 MHz, 74.6 74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz bands, so ample spectrum would be available for multiple applications. Further, part 15 auditory assistance devices' low power levels would enable other parties to re-use their frequencies at nearby locations.

12. With respect to part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions (i.e., emissions outside of the 200 kilohertz necessary bandwidths), comments were mixed on whether the Commission should modify the limit for these emissions. In the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, the Commission proposed that part 15 auditory assistance devices' out-of-band emissions limit be lowered to the general emissions limits for other unlicensed devices that are specified in rule § 15.209. The Commission noted that expanding the permissible use of these devices at any location could increase their use at locations where they are not also used to provide auditory assistance to disabled individuals as well as increase the number of channels operated at any given location to provide both auditory assistance and simultaneous translation. Out of concern that the unwanted emissions from increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous interpretation could degrade the reception of particularly sensitive VHF TV channels 2-6, the Commission decided to lower the unwanted emissions limit of part 15 auditory assistance devices to the emissions limit in § 15.209 that is applicable to other unlicensed devices.

13. The current allowed unwanted emissions limit of 1,500 μV/m at 3 meters for part 15 auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands is 15 times higher (23.5 dB more power) than the § 15.209 emissions limit of 100 μV/m at 3 meters that applies to most other part 15 devices' unwanted emissions in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands. It is also 18 times higher (25 dB more power) than the unwanted emissions limit of 84 μV/m at 3 meters that applies to part 15 personal/portable TV bands devices that operate in bands adjacent to occupied TV channels. Accordingly, the Commission lowered the limit for part 15 auditory assistance devices unwanted emissions to the general emission limits for other unlicensed devices that are specified in rule § 15.209. Although part 15 auditory assistance devices had not had a history of causing harmful interference to authorized services under the current rules, the Commission decided that this approach would help reduce the likelihood of harmful interference as their use increases and help improve the reception of VHF TV channels 2-6 and accordingly was in the public interest.

14. In support of this decision, the Commission noted in the Report and Order that since the time that it adopted the rules for part 15 auditory assistance device transmitters in 1972, all full service TV stations have converted from analog to digital transmissions. The Commission also noted that it had previously sought comment on measures to improve digital TV reception for consumers on VHF channels and encourage broadcasters to use these channels in the future. It further noted that one of the problems with indoor VHF TV reception is the high levels of noise on those channels from nearby consumer electronics equipment and that the Commission had previously stated that it would be desirable to reduce that noise and sought comment on what actions it might take to reduce such noise in the VHF TV bands.

15. In addition, since the Commission adopted the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” (Spectrum Act) was enacted to enable the Commission to make more efficient use of the TV bands spectrum by freeing up broadcast TV spectrum for wireless broadband services. Section 6403(a)(2) of the Spectrum Act directs the Commission to conduct a reverse auction of broadcast television spectrum that includes, inter alia, a bid option for participants' voluntary relinquishment of “all usage rights with respect to an ultra high frequency television channel in return for receiving usage rights with respect to a very high frequency television channel . . .” (UHF to VHF bid). In the incentive auction proceeding, the Commission sought comment on whether to permit eligible licensees to participate in the auction by agreeing to relinquish a high VHF channel in exchange for a low VHF channel. In that proceeding, the Commission again recognized that increased signal interference caused by the higher levels of ambient noise from other electronic devices operating on or near the low VHF frequency range can make the use of the low VHF channels difficult and could deter reverse auction participation.

16. The Commission decided that commenters'contention that most increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous translation would not be proximate to VHF TV reception areas was not compelling—it was not self-evident, it disregarded the consequences of harmful interference where it could occur, and it disregarded locations at which these frequencies could be used post-auction. In light of its efforts to make the VHF channels more useful to broadcasters by improving the reception of VHF digital TV and consistent with the objectives in the Spectrum Act, the Commission concluded that it is in the public interest and sound public policy to require part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions to comply with the § 15.209 emissions limits. The Commission provided a transition period to implement this requirement, and grandfathered all devices installed prior to the end of the transition period. The Commission was persuaded by the record that reducing the unwanted emissions limit of part 15 auditory assistance devices to the § 15.209 emissions limits could be accomplished using current technology at minimal cost, and that the § 15.209 emissions limits were achievable in part 15 auditory assistance devices using industry standard components employing relatively straight-forward designs at a small additional cost of 1 to 2 percent per device.

17. The Commission agreed with commenters that the 18-month and 3-year transition periods it had proposed should provide sufficient time for manufacturers to design part 15 auditory assistance devices with unwanted emissions that comply with § 15.209, obtain equipment certification, and plan the transition for manufacturing transmitters with the new design. It provided an 18-month transition period after the effective date of the new rules during which part 15 auditory assistance devices may continue to be certified under the current rules for such devices in § 15.237; after that time no such equipment will be certified unless its unwanted emissions are compliant with § 15.209. It also provided an additional 18 months during which such equipment certified under the current § 15.237 rules may continue to be manufactured and imported. After this 3-year period, no such equipment may be manufactured or imported unless its unwanted emissions are compliant with § 15.209. There is no deadline on the marketing of equipment that was manufactured or imported prior to the end of this 3-year period.

18. Beginning 18 months after the effective date of the new rules, equipment certification may no longer be obtained for part 15 auditory assistance devices with unwanted emissions that do not meet the § 15.209 limits. Until the end of the 3-year transition period, the Commission will permit Class II permissive changes for equipment certified prior to the 18-month transition date, as well as their continued manufacture, marketing, installation, and importation. After the end of the 3-year transition period, Class II permissive changes for such devices will not be permitted nor will their manufacture, marketing, installation, or importation. The Commission found that these requirements would facilitate the transition to tighter unwanted emissions limits without unduly impairing the availability or cost of part 15 auditory assistance devices or imposing undue burdens on manufacturers, translation services providers, or the public.

19. The Commission agreed with commenters that part 15 auditory assistance devices that are already installed or in use should be grandfathered for the life of the equipment. It decided that requiring the upgrade or replacement of existing part 15 auditory assistance devices with units having unwanted emissions that comply with the § 15.209 emissions limits would be an unnecessary financial burden on operators of these devices and could inhibit the ability of operators of public venues to provide auditory assistance to persons with disabilities as required by the ADA. It also decided that grandfathering existing equipment would ensure that entities will be permitted to operate their existing part 15 auditory assistance devices until replacement is necessary or desired due to age, malfunction, or other concerns, and would facilitate continued compliance with the ADA.

20. The Commission amended the definition of “auditory assistance device” in part 15 of the rules to expand the permissible uses of these devices to include simultaneous language interpretation for anyone at any location. It also amended § 15.237 to require that part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions comply with the § 15.209 emissions limits. In addition, it established a 3-year transition period after the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding for manufacturers to cease the domestic manufacture or importation for domestic sale of part 15 auditory assistance devices that do not comply with the revised unwanted emissions limits. The Commission also established a cutoff date of 18 months after the effective date of the new rules after which unwanted emissions from new part 15 auditory assistance devices must comply with the § 15.209 emissions limits in order to order to receive an equipment authorization. Except for the tighter unwanted emissions limits, the other administrative and technical requirements for operation of part 15 auditory assistance devices in the 72-73 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz bands remained unchanged.

21. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

22. 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).

23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Auditory Assistance Device NPRM) in ET Docket No. 10-26.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

24. In the Report and Order, the Commission expanded the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72.0-73.0 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz bands (72-76 MHz bands) beyond solely aural assistance for persons with disabilities to include simultaneous language interpretation for anyone at any location. It also reduced the limit for part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions to the radiated emissions limits specified in § 15.209. The objectives of the Commission in the Report and Order were to allow part 15 auditory assistance devices to be used for simultaneous translation by anyone at any location, remove barriers to communications, provide greater flexibility and enhanced benefits for persons wishing to use auditory assistance technologies, expand the opportunities to deploy auditory assistance devices, and improve the reception of VHF TV channels 2-6.

25. No public comments were received in response to the IRFA in the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM. However, in general comments on the Auditory Assistance Device NPRM, some commenters raised issues that might affect small entities. In particular, one commenter argued that allowing part 15 auditory assistance devices to be used for simultaneous translation would penalize entities that have purchased higher-cost infrared technology equipment to provide simultaneous translation. One commenter also argued that use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous translation is not an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 use and would interfere or disrupt other part 15 auditory assistance devices by crowding the frequencies. Commenters also requested that if the Commission imposed stricter out-of-band emissions limits on part 15 auditory assistance devices, then a transition period for compliance with the new limits should be established and existing part 15 auditory assistance devices should be grandfathered for the life of the equipment. The Commission carefully considered each of these comments in reaching the decisions set forth in the Report and Order.

26. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.5 A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.6

28. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. It therefore described here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.7 As of 2009, small businesses represented 99.9 percent of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.8 Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 9 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.10 Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 11 Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.12 The Commission estimated that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” 13 Thus, the Commission estimated that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

29. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier,14 private operational-fixed,15 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.16 At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission had not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission used the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees.17 The Commission did not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have no more than 1,500 employees, and thus it was unable to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimated that there are 22,015 or fewer common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein. The Commission noted, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.

30. Wireless Equipment Manufacturers. This industry is comprised of businesses primarily engaged in manufacturing radio, television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, cordless phones, global positioning system (GPS) equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.18 In this category, the SBA has deemed a business manufacturing radio and television broadcasting equipment, wireless telecommunications equipment, or both, to be small if it has fewer than 750 employees.19 For this category of manufacturing, Census data for 2007 showed that there were 919 firms that operated that year. Of those establishments, 531 had between 1 and 19 employees; 240 had between 20 and 99 employees; and 148 had more than 100 employees.20 Since 771 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and since only 148 had more than 100 employees, the vast majority of manufacturers in this category would be considered small under applicable standards. The rules adopted in the Report and Order will apply to small businesses that choose to use, manufacture, design, import, or sell part 15 auditory assistance devices. There is no requirement, however, for any entity to use, market, or produce these types of products.

31. The Report and Order expanded the permissible uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous language interpretation for anyone at any location and reduced the permitted level of part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions to the § 15.209 emissions limits. The item did not contain any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

32. After 18 months after the effective date of the new rules in this proceeding, the unwanted emissions of part 15 auditory assistance devices submitted for equipment authorization must comply with the § 15.209 emissions limits. After 3 years of the effective date of the new rules, the unwanted emissions of part 15 auditory assistance devices manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with the emissions limits in § 15.209. Manufacturers will incur engineering services and production costs to design and produce part 15 auditory assistance devices whose unwanted emission comply with the § 15.209 emission's limits. The § 15.209 emissions limits are currently achievable for part 15 auditory assistance devices' unwanted emissions at an estimated additional cost of 1 to 2 percent per device using industry standard components employing relatively straight-forward designs.21 The Commission expected that these costs will be comparable for large and small entities.

The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), in part, to establish a process for setting groundfish annual catch limits (also referred to as ACLs or catch limits) and accountability measures. The Council has a biennial review process to develop catch limits and revise management measures. Framework Adjustment (FW) 50 and concurrent emergency actions set annual catch limits for nine groundfish stocks and three jointly managed U.S./Canada stocks for FY 2013-2015. We recently partially approved FW 50, which became effective on May 1, 2013 (78 FR 26172; May 3, 2013). In addition to the specification set by FW 50, we took emergency action to set the catch limits for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder and white hake. For more information on these emergency actions, please see the preamble to FW 50.

Along with FW 50 and the concurrent emergency rule, we recently approved FY 2013 sector operations plans and allocations (78 FR 25591; May 2, 2013; “sector rule”). A sector receives an allocation of each stock, or annual catch entitlement (referred to as ACE, or allocation), based on its members' catch histories. State-operated permit banks also receive an allocation that can be transferred to qualifying sector vessels (for more information, see the final rule implementing Amendment 17 (77 FR 16942; March 23, 2012)). The sum of all sector and state-operated permit bank allocations is referred to as the sector sub-ACL in the FMP. Whatever groundfish allocation remains after sectors and state-operated permit banks receive their allocations is then allocated to vessels not enrolled in a sector (referred to as the common pool). This allocation is also referred to as the common pool sub-ACL.

Changes in sector membership require ACL and ACE adjustments. This rule adjusts the FY 2013 sector and common pool allocations based on final sector membership as of May 1, 2013. Permitted vessels that wish to fish in a sector must enroll by December 1 of each year, with the fishing year beginning the following May 1 and lasting through April 30 of the next year. However, due to a delay in distributing each vessel's potential contribution to a sector's quota for FY 2013, we delayed the deadline to join a sector until March 29, 2013. Because this deadline followed the publication of the FW 50 and sector proposed rules, FY 2012 membership was used to estimate sector ACEs for FY 2013. In addition, vessels had until April 30, 2013 (the day before the beginning of FY 2013) to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool. If the sector allocation increases as a result of sector membership changes, the common pool allocation decreases—the opposite is true as well. Because sector membership has changed since FY 2012, which was used in the FW 50 and sector rules, we need to update the allocations to all sectors and to the common pool.

The final number of permits enrolled in a sector or state-operated permit bank for FY 2013 is 851 (the same number of permits enrolled in FY 2012 and a decrease of 3 permits from March 29, 2013). All sector allocations assume that each NE multispecies vessel enrolled in a sector has a valid permit for FY 2013. Tables 1, 2, and 3 (below) explain the revised FY 2013 allocations as a percentage and absolute amount (in metric tons and pounds).

Table 4 compares the preliminary allocations based on FY 2012 membership published in the FW 50 proposed and final rules, with the revised allocations based on the final sector and state-operated permit bank rosters as of May 1, 2013. The table shows that changes in sector allocations due to updated rosters range from a decrease of 0.32 percent of Gulf of Maine (GOM) haddock, to an increase of 4.04 percent of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder. Common pool allocation adjustments range between a 16.17-percent decrease in SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, to a 59.09-percent increase in GOM haddock. The changes in the common-pool allocations are greater because the common pool has a significantly lower allocation for all stocks, so even small changes appear large when viewed as a percentage increase or decrease.

It is important to point out that this is only a temporary final rule. After we finish reconciling differences in catch accounting between our data and each sector manager's data, each sector will have 2 weeks to trade FY 2012 ACE to account for any overharvesting during that period. After that 2-week trading window, a sector that still has exceeded its FY 2012 allocation will have its FY 2013 allocation reduced, pursuant to regulatory requirements. Because data reconciliation and the 2-week trading window take place after the new fishing year has begun, we reserve 20 percent of each sector's FY 2013 allocation until FY 2012 catch data are reconciled, with the exception of SNE/MA winter flounder, which was newly allocated for FY 2013. This reserve is held to ensure that each sector has sufficient ACE to balance any overages from the previous fishing year. For FY 2013, sectors are also able to carry over up to 10 percent of their initial allocation of all regulated stocks to the next fishing year, with the exception of GOM cod, which can be carried over only up to 1.85 percent. We will publish a final follow-up rule detailing any carryover of FY 2012 sector allocation or reduction in FY 2013 allocation resulting from sectors under or overharvesting their allocations.

FW 50 also specifies incidental catch limits (or incidental total allowable catches, “TACs”) applicable to the common pool and NE multispecies Special Management Programs for FY 2013-2015, including the B day-at-sea (DAS) Program. Special Management Programs are designed to allow fishing for healthy stocks that can support additional fishing effort without undermining the other goals of the FMP. Incidental catch limits are specified to limit catch of certain stocks of concern for common pool vessels fishing in the Special Management Programs. Because these incidental catch limits are based on the changed common-pool allocation, they also must be revised. Final incidental catch limits are included in Tables 5-8 below.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we find good cause to waive prior public notice and opportunity for public comment on the catch limit and allocation adjustments because allowing time for notice and comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. We also find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective upon filing.

Notice and comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest because a delay would potentially impair achievement of the management plan's objectives of preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield by staying within ACLs or allocations. The proposed and final rules for FY 2013 sector operations plans and contracts explained the need and likelihood for adjustments of sector and common pool allocations based on final sector rosters. No comments were received on the potential for these adjustments, which provide an accurate accounting of a sector's or common pool's allocation at this time. If this rule is not effective immediately, the sector and common pool vessels will be operating under incorrect information on the catch limits for each stock for sectors and the common pool. This could cause negative economic impacts to the both sectors and the common pool, depending on the size of the allocation, the degree of change in the allocation, and the catch rate of a particular stock. Further, these adjustments are based purely on objective sector enrollment data and are not subject to NMFS' discretion, so there would be no benefit to allowing time for prior notice and comment.

Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness allows harvesting in a manner that prevents catch limits of species from being exceeded in fisheries that are important to coastal communities. Until the final stock allocations are made, the affected fishing entities will not know how many fish of a particular stock they can catch without going over their ultimate limits. Fishermen may make both short- and long-term business decisions based on the catch limits in a given sector or the common pool. Any delays in adjusting these limits may cause the affected fishing entities to slow down, or speed up, their fishing activities during the interim period before this rule becomes effective. Both of these reactions could negatively affect the fishery and the businesses and communities that depend on them. The fishing industry and the communities it supports could be affected by potentially reducing harvests and delaying profits. Lastly, the catch limit and allocation adjustments are not controversial and the need for them was clearly explained in the proposed and final rules for FY 2013 sector operations plans and contracts. As a result, the NE multispecies permit holders are expecting these adjustments and awaiting their implementation. Therefore, it is important to implement adjusted catch limits and allocations as soon as possible. For these reasons, we are waiving the public comment period and delay in effectiveness for this rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d), respectively.