We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60064), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-23-07, Amendment 39-16496 ((75 FR 68181, November 5, 2010); corrected (75 FR 78883, December 17, 2010)). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0164, dated August 5, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it generally agrees with the proposed requirements of the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012).

UAL requested that we add “a grace period from the AD effective date” for the compliance time for the inspection specified in paragraph (y) of the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012). UAL stated that some rudders used in sampling inspections may be over the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (y) of the NPRM. UAL proposed an alternative method of inspection for the affected rudders.

We partially agree. We agree with adding a compliance time of 30 days after the effective date of this AD for the inspection specified in paragraph (y) of this AD. We disagree with the commenter's proposed alternate method of inspection because no justification was submitted to substantiate that this alternate inspection method would adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Under the provisions of paragraph (ff) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternate method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an alternate inspection method would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Airbus requested that we change certain contact information. Airbus stated that paragraphs (j) and (dd) of the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012) should state that, for negative findings, submit the report to SEES1, Customer Services, fax +33 (0)5 61 93 36 14. Airbus also requested that we replace EAS with EIAS in paragraph (gg)(2) of the NPRM.

We agree and have changed paragraphs (j) and (dd) of this AD accordingly. We have also included the term EIAS in paragraphs (gg)(2) and (hh)(5) of this AD.

Airbus requested that we consider each Airbus Repair Approval Sheet (RAS) approved under Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) EASA.21J.031, provided to each rudder after damage is reported, as an approved method for permanent repair of rudder damage.

We agree. Airbus is an EASA delegated agent and therefore a RAS approved under Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) EASA.21J.031 would be method of compliance for a repair required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Airbus requested that we clarify why the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012) does not allow the temporary restoration with self-adhesive patches, or the temporary restoration with resin, which are specified in the MCAI.

We agree to clarify. Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-55A1038, Revision 02, dated September 28, 2009, does not provide specific procedures for operators to apply and inspect temporary restoration of vacuum loss inspection holes. This service information also does not specify pass/fail criteria for the detailed visual inspections associated with temporary repairs. This service information states that details of the hole restoration are provided in technical adaptations. We do not have access to technical adaptations for incorporating the technical adaptations by reference. Under the provisions of paragraph (ff) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to specify an acceptable process for temporary repairs and that those temporary repairs would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

In the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012), we included rudders P/N D554 71000 020 00, S/N TS-1494; and P/N D554 71002 000 00 0002, S/N TS-2212 in table 6 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM. In this final rule, we have specified these part/serial numbers in paragraphs (c), (aa), and (ee) of this AD, and removed table 6 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

We have also revised this final rule to change tables 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b to figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this AD; we made no change to the content of those tables. These changes were made for formatting purposes only.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 60064, October 2, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 721 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2010-23-07, Amendment 39-16496 ((75 FR 68181, November 5, 2010); corrected (75 FR 78883, December 17, 2010)), and retained in this AD take about 11 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the currently required actions on U.S. operators to be $674,135, or $935 per product.

We estimate that it will take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $674,135, or $935 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $11,020 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On January 10, 2013, at 78 FR 2223, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS A-1, BO-105LS A-3, EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with certain part-numbered cantilever assemblies, cyclic stick locking devices, or cyclic stick holder assemblies installed. The NPRM proposed to require modifying and identifying the cyclic stick cantilever or lock. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a pilot taking off with the cyclic in the locked position, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2008-0113, dated June 10, 2008, to correct an unsafe condition for the Model EC135, EC635 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises of several cases where takeoff was executed with a locked cyclic stick on EC135 series helicopters, which may lead to loss of control of the helicopter. EASA also advises that the stick-locking device installed on Model BO 105 and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters has a similar function as the device installed on the EC135 series helicopters. Therefore, EASA issued AD No. 2009-0079, dated April 1, 2009, to require modification of the cyclic-stick locking/centering device for the Model BO 105 and MBB-BK 117 helicopters.

After EASA AD No. 2009-0079 was issued, type design ownership for the Model BO-105 LS A3 was transferred from Canada to Germany. Because Transport Canada had not issued an AD prior to the transfer, EASA superseded AD No. 2009-0079 with AD No. 2010-0049, dated March 19, 2010, to include Model BO-105 LS A3 in its applicability. The EASA ADs also require amending the applicable Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM).

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 2223, January 10, 2013).

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

This AD does not apply to Model BO-105D, BO-105DB, BO-105DB-4, BO-105DBS-4, BO-105DBS-5, BO-105DS or the military Model EC635 helicopters because these models are not type certificated in the United States. The EASA AD requires amending the RFM; this AD does not because the RFM revisions have been incorporated by the type certificate holder.

Eurocopter has issued the following alert service bulletins (ASB) for each of its model helicopters:

• ASB BO105-40-106, dated December 19, 2008, for all Model BO105 helicopters, except Model BO105 CB-3.

• ASB-BO 105 LS 40-10, dated May 8, 2009, for all Model BO 105 LS A-3 helicopters.

• ASB EC135-67A-015, dated April 14, 2008, for certain serial-numbered Model EC135 and EC635 helicopters.

• ASB-MBB-BK117-40-113, dated December 22, 2008, for all Model MBB-BK117 Models A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1.

• ASB MBB BK117 C-2-67A-008, dated April 14, 2008, for certain serial-numbered Model MBB BK117 C-2 helicopters.

These ASBs specify procedures to modify the cantilever assembly or the cyclic stick locking device, which allows neutral positioning and centering of the cyclic stick without the locking feature.

We estimate that this AD will affect 416 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. It will take about .5 work hour to modify the cyclic stick lock at $85 per work hour with no cost for parts. This results in a total estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $17,680 for the fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75590). That NPRM proposed to require insertions into the pilot's operating handbook (POH) and the airplane maintenance manuals (AMM) regarding proper use of the brakes and inspection of the aft fuselage.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.

Paul Rene LaChance stated that while supportive of the AD, he believes it to be too late and does not go far enough. He commented that he had experienced such an incident himself. Maximum braking had occurred. Afterward, the airplane was flown for a short flight with the pilot unaware of the severe tail damage, and the tail almost came off. The commenter states we should require modification of the airplane with the main landing gear oriented vertical rather than the current forward tilt.

We do not agree with this comment. The controllability of the aircraft is not in question if the pilot reduces brake pressure in the event of a wheel walking event. The procedures in the AD will ensure pilots are aware of appropriate actions and what inspections are required if such an event occurs. The commenter may provide substantiating data and apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) following the procedures in paragraph (i) of this AD to implement a design modification.

Darryl James Taylor, Steven Masters, William Paul Boyd, Paul Harrington, George Richard Wilhelmsen, Todd Thompson, Larry D. Fenwick, and Thomas Clare who is President of the Cessna Advanced Aircraft Club (CAAC), requested we withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 75590, December 21, 2012) because it is unnecessary, does not add to safety, and is ineffective. The AD would affect 726 airplanes, and there have only been five occurrences out of thousands of landings over the past nine years. The commenters do not feel this is statistically significant. Since the AD comes several years after an isolated incident, the AD addresses no real safety concern. Appropriate notices have already been incorporated in POH manuals per Cessna Service Bulletin SB 10-11-01, dated August 17, 2010. The commenters feel it is unlikely that additional notes to the POH or placards will be an effective solution.

We do not agree with this comment. The wheel walking characteristics are highly unusual. We are unaware of any other airplane model that has experienced such an event. Currently, the events are relatively well publicized, but they may be forgotten or unknown to future pilots without previous knowledge about the airplane. Adding the changes to the POH and maintenance manual and mandating the aft fuselage inspection will assure that someone does not take off again after an event without having the airplane inspected. The added changes will also help the pilot better know how to handle the airplane if the wheel walk event does occur. The AD process is the only means where the FAA can require all owner/operators to incorporate all the necessary changes and conduct the required inspection. However, owner/operators that have already incorporated the POH changes per the Cessna service bulletin may receive credit for certain actions required by this AD.

Darryl James Taylor, William Paul Boyd, Paul Herrington, George Richard Wilhelmsen, and Larry D. Fenwick commented that maximum braking is considered panic braking where the pilot instinctively reacts to an adverse condition, and they feel the real issue is proper maintenance training. The braking issue occurs only when the gear bushings have slipped completely out, and maintenance shops do not know what they are looking at. In which case, the solutions in the AD will be ineffective. Probably, the landings were not made under ideal or normal conditions, and the pilots may have exceeded operational specifications during landing. This issue should have an engineering solution such as anti-lock brakes, which could prevent brake lock-up and avoid the adverse condition. It would address maximum braking, no matter what the cause. The anti-lock system would include slotted wheels and Hall sensors and change the current braking system. The cost would be justified because of the reduced risk of structural damage.

We do not agree with this comment. Although we would consider a design change as an AMOC, we have determined that the requirements in this AD are sufficient to address the unsafe condition. The commenters may provide substantiating data and apply for an AMOC following the procedures in paragraph (i) of this AD to implement a modification as an acceptable level of safety to address the unsafe condition.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 75590, December 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 75590, December 21, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 726 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

On June 14th, a temporary deviation from the drawbridge regulation was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 35756) under the same name and docket number. This temporary deviation modifies the times listed on the previously published deviation in which the deviation will be in effect.

The Metropolitan District Commission (Craigie) Bridge, across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13.5 feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles River Dam. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR § 117.591(e).

The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting various size vessels.

The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public safety during a public event, the 2013 Fourth of July Concert and Fireworks.

Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 10 p.m. on July 4, 2013 through 12 a.m. on July 5, 2013, the Metropolitan District Commission (Craigie) Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Charles River at Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the closed position.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.

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.

The Long Beach Bridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water, and 24 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

The bridge owner, the County of Nassau Department of Public Works, requested a bridge closure to facilitate a public event, the Town of Hempstead Annual Salute to Veterans Fireworks Display.

Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridge may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. on June 29, 2013 and 12 a.m. on June 30, 2013, with a rain date of June 30, 2013 and July 1, 2013.

Reynolds Creek has commercial and recreational vessel traffic. No objections were received from the waterway users.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI, at the following times for the following events:

(1) Polish Fest fireworks display on June 15, 2013, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.;

(2) Summerfest fireworks display on June 26, 2013, and July 3, 2013, from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;

(3) Festa Italiana fireworks display on each day of July 19, 20, and 21, 2013, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(4) German Fest fireworks display on July 26 and 27, 2013, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(5) Irish Fest fireworks display on August 18, 2013, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(6) Indian Summer fireworks display on September 6 and 7, 2013, from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI 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 advance notification of the enforcement period via broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

On April 10, 2013, EPA proposed to approve four Missouri SIP submissions (78 FR 21281). EPA received the first submission on February 27, 2007, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received the second submission on December 28, 2009, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As originally detailed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA had previously approved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)—Interstate and international transport requirements of Missouri's February 27, 2007, SIP submission for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 25975, May 8, 2007); and EPA disapproved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate and international transport requirements of Missouri's December 28, 2009, SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 43156, July 20, 2011). Therefore, in the April 10, 2013, proposed action, we did not propose to act on those portions since they have already been acted upon by EPA. With this final action, we will have acted on both the February 27, 2007, and the December 28, 2009, submissions in their entirety, excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of today's rulemaking as identified in section IV of the April 10, 2013, proposed action for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions.

The third submission was received by EPA on September 5, 2012. This submission revises Missouri's rule in Title 10, Division 10, Chapter 6.060 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR) (10 CSR 10-6.060) “Construction Permits Required” to implement certain elements of the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). On March 19, 2013, Missouri amended and clarified its submission so that it no longer included specific provisions affected by the January 22, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia court decision which vacated and remanded the provisions concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs and vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC that were promulgated as part of the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Rule (Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed December 17, 2010)). In addition, this rule amendment defers the application of PSD permitting requirements to carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources.

EPA received the fourth submission on August 8, 2012. This submission addresses the conflict of interest provisions in section 128 of the CAA as it relates to element E of the infrastructure SIP.

In summary, EPA is taking final action today to approve these four SIP submissions from Missouri. The first two submissions addressed the requirements of CAA sections 110 (a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5. With this final action, we will have acted on both the 1997 and 2006 submissions in their entirety excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of the rulemaking. EPA is also taking final action to approve two additional SIP submissions from Missouri, one addressing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri as it relates to PM2.5, unless otherwise noted in EPA's proposed action on April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21281), and another SIP revision addressing the requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which support the requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.

In today's action, EPA also acknowledges an administrative error in our April 10, 2013 proposal. Under section V, within EPA's analysis of the state's submittal for element E related to infrastructure SIP requirements, we referenced that both sections 643.040.2 and 105.450 were a part of the “Air Conservation” chapter of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Through today's action, EPA acknowledges that section 105.450 is not a part of the “Air Conservation” chapter, but instead is a part of the “Public Officers and Employees—Miscellaneous Provisions” chapter of the Missouri Revised Statutes. No changes were made based on this correction.

We also note that within the April 10, 2013, proposed rulemaking, we relied upon a separate direct final action from April 2, 2013,1 to demonstrate that Missouri met all the requirements of element C of the infrastructure SIP (78 FR at 21286). EPA received no comments on this direct final action, and therefore this SIP revision became effective on June 3, 2013.

The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened April 10, 2013, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on May 10, 2013. During this period, EPA received three comment letters: One from a citizen received April 18, 2013; one from the Sierra Club and Earthjustice received May 10, 2013 (hereinafter “Sierra Club”); and one from the National Parks Conservation Association received May 10, 2013 (hereinafter “NPCA”). All three letters are available in the docket to today's final rule. The citizen comment was made in support of EPA's action, and we appreciate the support for this rulemaking. No changes were made to this final action based on this comment. The remaining two letters contained some similar comments, and therefore we have grouped those similar comments into single comments and responses where appropriate.

Comment 1: The Sierra Club contends that Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS do not meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). First, the commenter suggests that the SIP submissions are deficient because the state relies “on general, existing statutory and regulatory authority in lieu of developing specific new requirements tailored to ensure that the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is maintained and enforced.” Second, the Commenter suggests that certain existing provisions in Missouri's SIP and relied upon in the SIP submissions may be insufficiently specific to be enforceable emissions limits. In support of the latter concern, the Commenter cites the court decision in McEvoy v. IEI Barge Services, 622 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2010) for the proposition that “some (but not all) courts have suggested that only an emissions limitation that specifically `limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions,' can be an `enforceable emission limitation'” under the CAA. The implication of this comment is that only an emissions limitation that is sufficiently specific could meet the legal requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of enforcement, and thus for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission as well.

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's contention that Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions are not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because they do not contain “new requirements” for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Similarly, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's view that the existing provisions of the Missouri SIP are not enforceable emissions limitations for purposes of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

With respect to the concerns about the reliance on general, existing statutory and regulatory authority to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) in lieu of developing specific new requirements, the Sierra Club is incorrect with respect to the scope of what is germane to an action on an infrastructure SIP. This rulemaking pertains to EPA's action on infrastructure SIP submissions, which must only establish that the state's SIP meets the general structural requirements described in section 110(a)(2)(A) for the NAAQS at issue. That section states that each implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA shall include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, states may establish that they have sufficient SIP provisions for this purpose through existing SIP provisions, through newly submitted SIP provisions, or through a combination of the two.

The Commenter seems to believe that in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) explicitly requires that a state adopt all possible new enforceable emission limits, control measures and other means developed specifically for attaining and maintaining the new NAAQS within the state. EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes that different requirements for SIPs become due at different times depending on the precise applicable requirements in the CAA. For example, SIP submissions that may contain new emissions limitations for purposes of attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are required pursuant to CAA section 172(b), as part of an attainment demonstration for areas designated as nonattainment for the NAAQS. The timing of such an attainment demonstration would be after promulgation of a NAAQS, after completion of designations, and after development of the applicable nonattainment plans, i.e., long after the time when section 110(a)(1) requires an infrastructure SIP submission.

The Sierra Club comment suggests that EPA should disapprove a state's infrastructure SIP submission if the state has not already developed all the substantive emissions limitations that may ultimately be required for all purposes, such as attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as part of an attainment plan for a designated nonattainment area. Instead, for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), and for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes the proper inquiry is whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. EPA does not interpret section 110(a)(2)(A) to require states in an infrastructure SIP submission to have developed and submitted the full range of emissions limits that may ultimately be necessary for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS within the state. As explained in the proposal, EPA has concluded that Missouri has adequately established that it has met basic requirements for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS through the existing SIP provisions identified in the proposal.

With respect to the Sierra Club's concerns about Missouri's use of “broad provisions” in its SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed Missouri's statutes and regulations in light of the McEvoy court decision noted by the Commenter. EPA acknowledges the Commenter's concern that SIP provisions must contain sufficient specificity, so that the regulated community, regulators, and members of the public can clearly ascertain what is required of sources, and so that enforcement can occur in the event of violations. EPA believes that the Court's decision in McEvoy is limited to the specific facts and circumstances of that case, but nevertheless reflects what may happen in an enforcement proceeding if a given SIP provision is ultimately deemed insufficiently specific to be enforceable. However, based on a review of the provisions at issue, we conclude that Missouri has sufficiently specific statutory and regulatory provisions in place to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission.

As we noted in the proposed rulemaking and as Sierra Club acknowledges, RsMO section 643.050.1(1)(b) gives the Missouri Air Conservation Commission the authority to adopt, promulgate, amend and repeal rules and regulations that establish “maximum quantities of air contaminants that may be emitted from any air contaminant source.” Pursuant to that authority, Missouri has adopted ambient air quality standards at 10 CSR 10-6.010 that mirror the 1997 PM2.5 annual and 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, along with the NAAQS for other criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead and nitrogen dioxide. The regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A) provide specific emissions limits for PM2.5 and other pollutants. See also 10 CSR 10-6.060(11) (providing maximum allowable increases of particulate matter in Class I, Class II, and Class III areas in Missouri).

The regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.030(5) provide specific requirements for sampling the concentration of particulate matter emissions from sources; these requirements specifically incorporate by reference the test methods contained in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. Furthermore, the regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.040(4) provide reference methods for determining the concentration of particulate matter necessary for the enforcement of air pollution control regulations throughout Missouri. These regulations incorporate by reference the standards found at 40 CFR part 50.

EPA also notes that the Missouri air pollution control regulations contain specific requirements concerning the control of particulate matter. See, e.g., 10 CSR 10-6.170 (Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin); 10 CSR 10-6.400 (Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter From Industrial Processes); 10 CSR 10-6.405 (Restriction of Particulate Matter Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating).

Furthermore, Missouri's regulations require that operating permits issued to sources contain specific “emissions limitations or standards applicable to the installation” and “operational requirements or limitations as necessary to assure compliance with all applicable requirements.” 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(C)1. Thus, in addition to the emission limitations applicable to sources through the generally applicable provisions of the SIP, sources that are required to obtain permits will have additional legally enforceable requirements to meet specific emission limitations, control measures, or other restrictions as appropriate.

Coupled with the enforcement authority provided by Missouri's statutes and regulations, which provides MDNR the authority to issue compliance orders or assess administrative penalties for violations of any emissions limitations of the SIP, EPA continues to believe that Missouri has sufficient authority to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Comment 2: The Sierra Club and NPCA commented that emission reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) are not permanent and enforceable and therefore EPA cannot rely on CAIR to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4. Sierra Club argued that in light of the remand of the rule by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), CAIR is neither permanent nor enforceable. Sierra Club also states that EPA has acknowledged in other Federal Register notices that CAIR was remanded without vacatur, was only temporary and could not be relied on as permanent and enforceable emission reductions for SIP approval purposes. Sierra Club also states that the Court's decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) does not extend the life of CAIR and does not make CAIR a permanent and enforceable measure on which the state or EPA can rely. Therefore, the commenters state that EPA should disapprove this sub-element of Missouri's SIP.

Response 2: EPA agrees that all control measures in a SIP must be enforceable based on the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA disagrees, however, that CAIR is not enforceable at this time, given the scope of the court's order in EME Homer City and the issuance of the mandate in that case.

On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form secondarily in the atmosphere (76 FR 70093). The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the Court's decision, EPA issued the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating CSAPR, EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7.2 In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR, “pending . . . development of a valid replacement rule” (Id. at 38).

The direction from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will be enforceable and in place for a number of years. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating the new rule, EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement that rule. CAIR thus will remain in force until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if appropriate. In the meantime, neither the State nor EPA has taken any final action to remove the CAIR requirements from the Missouri SIP. These SIP provisions remain in place and are Federally enforceable.

Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences of vacating CAIR “might be more severe now in light of the reliance interests accumulated over the intervening four years” (EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38). The accumulated reliance interests include the interests of the states who reasonably assumed they could rely on reductions associated with CAIR to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and, in turn, the requirements of Prong 4 of section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

The proposed and final EPA actions cited by the Commenter as support for its argument that EPA has considered CAIR to be temporary all pre-date the vacatur of CSAPR and were based on EPA's expectation that CSAPR would be the replacement for CAIR, and thus CAIR would end soon.3 At the time of these actions, CAIR was reasonably expected to sunset by operation of law in a fairly short timeframe. That background assumption no longer applies. Based on the vacatur of CSAPR and the Court's related decision to keep CAIR in place, EPA believes that it is appropriate at this time to rely on CAIR emission reductions as permanent and enforceable SIP measures while a valid replacement rule is developed and until implementation plans complying with any such new rule are submitted by the States and acted upon by EPA or until the EME Homer City case is resolved in a way that provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.

EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to prong 4 because Missouri's regional haze SIP, to which EPA has given limited approval in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR, adequately prevents sources in Missouri from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period. While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 7, 2012, or June 26, 2012, limited disapproval and limited approval of Missouri's regional haze SIP, EPA expects to propose appropriate action regarding this SIP, if necessary, upon final resolution of the EME Homer City litigation. A more detailed rationale to support EPA's approval of prong 4 for Missouri's 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure submission can be found in EPA's proposed rulemaking for today's final action (78 FR 21281).

Comment 3: The NPCA commented that EPA cannot approve portions of the Missouri infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility because these submittals rely on CAIR, and CAIR cannot meet the BART or reasonable progress requirements of the visibility program. NPCA argues that to meet the requirements of the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA must direct Missouri to develop an implementation plan that meets the BART and reasonable progress requirements of the regional haze rule. In particular, NPCA raised a number of legal arguments in support of its position that section 169A of the CAA requires source-specific BART determinations for power plants and does not allow states to adopt alternative programs, such as CAIR, in lieu of these source-specific requirements. The NPCA also stated that CAIR cannot be used to shield sources from review under the CAA's reasonable progress requirements. NPCA commented that in the absence of a source-specific review to determine reasonable progress measures, it is not possible to determine whether CAIR will fulfill the reasonable progress requirements, assuming it could overcome the lack of enforceability of the program.

Response 3: The visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) of the CAA requires SIPs to “contain adequate provisions . . . prohibiting . . . any source . . . within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . . interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter . . . to protect visibility.” We interpret this provision of section 110 of the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. This is consistent with the requirements in the regional haze program which explicitly require each state to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for surrounding Class I areas (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i); see also 77 FR 11958, 11962, February 28, 2012). Given this explicit requirement in the regional haze rule, states may satisfy the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) through an EPA-approved regional haze SIP. EPA issued a limited approval of Missouri's regional haze plan on June 26, 2012, having determined, among other things, that the SIP submittal provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its long-term strategy includes all measures necessary to obtain its share of emission reductions needed to address the impacts of Missouri's emissions sources on Class I areas in other states (77 FR 38007, 38009).

In its comments, however, NPCA argues that important elements of Missouri's approved regional haze SIP do not meet the requirements of section 169A of the CAA. EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the CAA does not allow states to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. EPA's regulations allowing states to adopt alternatives to BART that provide for greater reasonable progress, and the Agency's determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART requirements, have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006) as meeting the requirements of the CAA. We also note that the regional haze regulations do not require a source-specific analysis of controls for reasonable progress. Even assuming, however, that the Missouri regional haze SIP improperly relied on CAIR to meet the BART and reasonable progress requirements, the NPCA has not shown that the State's plan does not comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and(2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented in the state. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 for the following section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In addition, EPA is approving two SIP submissions, one addressing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri as it relates to PM2.5, and another SIP revision addressing the requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which support the requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.

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 20, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's eCFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0177 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 20, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0177, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

In the Federal Register of May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL-9347-8), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7956) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 24719. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.485 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyproconazole, in or on peanut, hay at 6.0 parts per million (ppm), and peanut, nutmeat; peanut, meal; peanut, butter; and peanut, refined oil at 0.03 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no substantive comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the requested tolerance levels and crops for which tolerances were needed. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cyproconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyproconazole follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The acute studies demonstrate that cyproconazole is moderately toxic by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It is neither an eye nor dermal irritant. Cyproconazole did not cause dermal sensitization. Consistent with similar anti-fungal pesticide active ingredients in this class (e.g., tetraconazole), the critical toxicological effects for cyproconazole in mammals appear to be indicative of hepatotoxicity. These effects include elevated levels of the liver enzymes lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and aspartate aminotransferase, increased liver weight (relative and absolute), vacuolization, fatty changes, hepatocytomegaly, hypertrophy, and single-cell necrosis. For both subchronic and chronic durations, hepatotoxicity was observed in rats, mice and dogs, and all of these species appeared to be equally sensitive to cyproconazole toxicity with regards to the range of the doses tested (~0.5 to 130 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). Other notable effects seen in rat subchronic oral feeding studies included increased macrophages in the lung, increased white blood cell counts and globulins, decreased spleen weights, histocytosis of the spleen, and spleen micropathology.

There are two dermal toxicity studies submitted for cyproconazole, both showing effects similar to the oral studies. In the 21-day study, dermal exposure to cyproconazole resulted in decreased body-weight gain and food consumption (males), increased aspartate aminotransferase (males), increased creatinine (females), and increased cholesterol in both sexes at the highest dose tested (1,250 mg/kg/day). In the 28-day study, toxicity occurred at the mid-dose (100 mg/kg/day). These effects included increased plasma globulin, protein and cholesterol, and hemosiderin deposition in the spleen in females (1,000 mg/kg/day in males), hypertrophy of the thyroid follicular epithelium in both males and females, and increased incidences of centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in males (1,000 mg/kg/day in females).

The developmental studies indicate that cyproconazole causes developmental toxicity. There are two developmental toxicity studies in rabbits, which were more sensitive for developmental effects than the rat. In the older study using chinchilla rabbits, the pups showed increased susceptibility with toxicity occurring at the lowest dose tested (2 mg/kg/day, the developmental no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was not established). These effects included increased incidences of hydrocephalus internus (abnormal accumulation of cerebral spinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain). The maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 10 mg/kg/day. This developmental toxicity study was classified unacceptable and does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a developmental toxicity study (OPPTS Guideline 870.3700; OECD 414) in the rabbit because the concentrations of test material were not within the acceptable range (±15% of nominal concentration) for the mid- and high-dose suspensions immediately after preparation. In the most recent study using New Zealand white rabbits, cyproconazole produced increased incidences of malformed fetuses and litters with malformed fetuses (hydrocephalus and kidney agenesis) at doses lower than the doses that produced maternal toxicity (50 mg/kg/day for dams and 10 mg/kg/day for fetuses). In rats, cyproconazole increased the incidences of supernumerary ribs at the same doses at which maternal adverse effects (decreased body-weight gain) were observed (12 mg/kg/day). There was no evidence of reproductive toxicity in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study. The parental toxicity in the 2-generation reproduction study was manifested as increased lipid storage and relative liver weights in males and increased relative liver weights in females (8.29 mg/kg/day). No offspring toxicity was observed at any of the doses tested.

Although there was evidence of carcinogenicity found in a mouse study, EPA has determined that cyproconazole is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses that do not cause a mitogenic response in the liver (Ref. 1). In contrast to rodent cells, there are some limited data to suggest that constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activation does not stimulate cell proliferation or inhibit apoptosis in human cells. However, the literature does not yet support the conclusion that CAR activation is not biologically plausible in humans. This conclusion is based on the weight of evidence that supports a non-genotoxic mitogenic mode of action for cyproconazole. The activation of the CAR receptor, the required initiating event, leads to a cascade of key events resulting in liver tumor development in mice. The data did not support: (1) Peroxisome proliferation, (2) mutagenesis, or (3) cytotoxicity followed by sustained regenerative proliferation as alternative modes of action. The quantification of carcinogenic potential is not required. The current reference dose (RfD) of 0.01 mg/kg/day is based on a 1-year dog study in which hepatotoxicity and organ weight changes were seen at 3.2 mg/kg/day and no adverse effects were observed at 1 mg/kg/day (NOAEL). This RfD would be protective of any liver effects caused by cyproconazole in the mouse toxicity studies or mode of action studies at higher doses.

There is no evidence of targeted neurotoxicity in the toxicity database. There were no central nervous system (CNS) malformations present in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats, there were no findings in pups that were suggestive of changes in neurological development. Additionally, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in other studies.

Finally, there is no evidence that cyproconazole is an immunotoxicant. Although there is no immunotoxicity study currently available for cyproconazole, the available data indicate that cyproconazole does not have immunotoxic effects. This is consistent with the fact that the target organ is the liver, which is similar to the other triazole fungicides, which do not have immunotoxic effects.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyproconazole as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Cyproconazole. Tolerance Petition for Residues in/on Peanuts, Human-Health Risk Assessment” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0177.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to cyproconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing cyproconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.485. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyproconazole in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In conducting the acute dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, an unrefined acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was performed assuming tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. An unrefined chronic dietary exposure and risk analysis was performed assuming tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that cyproconazole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for cyproconazole. Tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated was assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyproconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of cyproconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyproconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 113 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.52 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 43 ppb for surface water and 1.52 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. Since the EDWC estimates from surface water were higher than those from ground water, EDWC estimates in surface water were used in both acute and chronic dietary risk assessments.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Cyproconazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential handler exposure. Cyproconazole is proposed for use on golf course turf, which may result in post-application dermal exposure to golfers (both adults and children). No chemical-specific data were available to assess potential short-term dermal post-application exposures to adult and youth golfers. Therefore, a series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential post-application risk assessment. Each assumption and factor is detailed in the 2012 Residential SOPs (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html). Post-application oral and inhalation exposures, as well as residential handler exposures, are not expected based on the current use patterns for cyproconazole. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Cyproconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (Ref. 2). In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Cyproconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including cyproconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA Safety Factor for the protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was conducted and completed in August 2012, in association with a registration request for the triazole fungicide, propiconazole. Residue data demonstrated that there was no increase in exposure to the common triazole metabolites with the proposed use. The tolerances for cyproconazole in/on peanuts covered by this action are not expected to change the risk of exposure to the triazoles determined in that risk analysis. The document, titled “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address the Amended Propiconazole Section 3 Registration to Add Use on Sugarcane” may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0427.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity, and the database is complete for purposes of assessing prenatal and postnatal toxicity. There is evidence that cyproconazole is a developmental toxicant; however, the LOC is low since: (1) The effects in fetuses are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL and (2) the developmental toxicity study where increased susceptibility was observed is being used for the acute dietary endpoint (females 13-49 years), which will be protective of effects in infants and children. There is no evidence of reproductive toxicity or neurotoxicity in the cyproconazole database.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for cyproconazole is complete, except for an immunotoxicity study. As noted in Unit III.A., the concern for the lack of this study is low because there is no evidence that cyproconazole causes immunotoxic effects. EPA does not believe that an immunotoxicity study will result in a lower point of departure (POD) than that which is currently in use for overall risk assessment. As such, a database uncertainty factor is not necessary to account for the lack of an immunotoxicity study.

ii. There is no indication that cyproconazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. While there is evidence that exposure to cyproconazole results in increased susceptibility in in utero rabbits, EPA does not believe that the FQPA safety factor of 10X is necessary to protect infants and children for the reasons stated in Unit III.D.2. above.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to cyproconazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyproconazole.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to cyproconazole will occupy 32% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old. The acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was conducted only for females 13-49 years old since an endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose for the general population was not identified.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to cyproconazole from food and water will utilize 28% of the cPAD for infants (<1 years old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for cyproconazole.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure is calculated by aggregating short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, cyproconazole is not currently registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. In consideration of a pending turf use for cyproconazole, a short-term aggregate assessment was completed. The pending golf course use is the only use that may result in residential exposure. The golfer exposure (dermal) represents the highest residential exposure of all potential adult exposure scenarios. Therefore, the short-term assessment is protective of all potential exposures resulting from the pending golf course use. For the short-term aggregate assessment, the short-term oral NOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg/day (from the 90-day oral rat study) is compared to the total (dietary + residential) exposure to calculate risk. Since the aggregate MOEs are greater than 100, the calculated risks do not exceed the Agency's LOCs.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). There are no residential scenarios that result in intermediate-term exposure; therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate exposure and risk assessment is not required.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Although there was evidence of carcinogenicity found in a mouse study, EPA has determined that cyproconazole is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses that do not cause a mitogenic response in the liver (Ref. 1). As a result, an aggregate cancer exposure and risk assessment is not required, as cyproconazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyproconazole residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatograph/nitrogen-phosphorus detection) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for cyproconazole.

The Agency is correcting the commodity terminology for peanut by establishing a tolerance for peanut, rather than peanut, nutmeat. In addition, the Agency has modified the levels for which tolerances are being established for peanut (0.03 to 0.01 ppm). Based on an analysis of the residue data using the OECD tolerance calculation procedures, the tolerance for peanut is based on the limit of quantitation (0.01 ppm). Following exaggerated-rate applications of cyproconazole, average residues of cyproconazole were below the limit of quantitation in/on peanut, meal, refined oil, and butter; therefore, processing factors could not be calculated. Accordingly, separate tolerances for residues of cyproconazole are not required for peanut, meal, refined oil, and peanut butter.

Also, EPA has revised the tolerance expression for cyproconazole 40 CFR 180.485 to clarify:

1. That as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of cyproconazole.

2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyproconazole, in or on peanut and peanut, hay at 0.01 and 6.0 ppm, respectively.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this rule.

This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This document announces that on June 7, 2013 OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 13-4, published at 78 FR 23150, April 18, 2013. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0537. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of such approval.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that on June 7, 2013 it received OMB approval for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules found in 47 CFR 13.9, 13.13(c), 13.17(b), 13.211(e) and 13.217.

Under 5 CFR 13.20, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0537.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0537.

OMB Approval Date: June 7, 2013.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2016.

Title: Sections 13.9, 13.13(c), 13.17(b), 13.211(e) and 13.217, Commercial Operator License Examination Managers (COLEM) Records.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 9 respondents; 9 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.44 hours up to 30 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and semi-annual reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 14,796 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: Each COLEM recovering fees from examinees must maintain records of expenses and revenues, frequency of examinations administered, and examination pass rates. Records must cover from January to December 31 of the preceding year and must be submitted as directed by the FCC. Each COLEM must retain records for three years and the records must be made available to the FCC upon request.

The records are journal entries showing revenues collected and expenses incurred. The records may be inspected by FCC field investigators. The records will provide a vehicle for the FCC to cancel the designation of a person or organization as an examination manager. If the information were not collected, it is conceivable that fraud and abuse could occur in the commercial operator examination program.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 12-352, adopted February 28, 2013, and released March 1, 2013. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 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 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

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

General Background

The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The FMP and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational management measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states from North Carolina to Maine manage these fisheries within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern fishing activity in the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing Federal permits for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass, regardless of where they fish.

A proposed rule to implement the 2013 Federal recreational measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries was published on April 29, 2013 (78 FR 25052). Additional background and information is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

In this rule, NMFS is implementing management measures for the 2013 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. This rule also implements an increase in the 2013 and 2014 black sea bass specifications, consistent with a new acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation. All minimum fish sizes discussed hereafter are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person.

The process for establishing specifications was summarized in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. At its December 2012 meeting, the Council requested that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) revisit the 2013 black sea bass specifications and make a recommendation for the 2014 fishing year. On January 23, 2013, the SSC met to reconsider these specifications and recommended an increase in the specifications for both the 2013 and 2014 fishing years. The SSC revised its recommendation for the 2013 and 2014 black sea bass ABC to 5.5 million lb (2,495 mt). The Council voted at its February 2013 meeting to recommend that the new ABC be implemented in conjunction with the recreational management measures. The following table provides the initial specifications for black sea bass for 2013 that were established in the specifications final rule (December 31, 2012; 77 FR 76942) and the revised specifications for 2013 and 2014 that are implemented in this rule.

As a result of this increase in the black sea bass catch limits, there is a corresponding increase of 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) of black sea bass in the available Research Set-Aside (RSA). Of the total 140,000 lb (65.5 mt) of black sea bass RSA now available, 129,420 lb (58.7 mt) have been awarded. The resulting difference of 10,580 lb (4.8 mt) is redistributed to the recreational harvest limit and the commercial quota, proportionally based on the sector allocations specified in the FMP (i.e., 49 percent to the commercial sector and 51 percent to the recreational sector.) Therefore, this rule implements a recreational harvest limit of 2,262,929 lb (1,026 mt) and a commercial quota of 2,174,312 lb (986 mt).

This rule implements the following measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the EEZ and to all federally permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass permits regardless of where they fish. For summer flounder, use of state-by-state conservation equivalency measures, which are the status quo measures; for scup, a 10-inch (25.4-cm) minimum fish size, a 30-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31; and, for black sea bass, a 12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum fish size, and a 20-fish per person possession limit for open seasons of May 19 through October 14 and November 1 through December 31.

Federal permit holders are reminded that, as a condition of their Federal permit, they must abide by the Federal measures, even if fishing in state waters. In addition, in instances where the state-implemented measures are different than the Federal measures, federally permitted vessels must adhere to the more restrictive of the two measures. This will be applicable for both the 2013 scup and black sea bass recreational fisheries.

This final rule implements the use of conservation equivalency to manage the 2013 summer flounder recreational fishery. NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP on July 29, 2001 (66 FR 36208), to permit the use of conservation equivalency to manage the recreational summer flounder fishery. Conservation equivalency allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures to achieve its state harvest limit partitioned from the coastwide recreational harvest limit by the Commission. The combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures, hence the term conservation equivalency. This means that minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons developed and adopted by the individual states from Massachusetts to North Carolina will replace the Federal waters measures for 2013.

The Commission notified the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator by letter dated May 14, 2013, that the 2013 summer flounder recreational fishery management programs (i.e., minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing seasons) implemented by the states from Massachusetts to North Carolina have been reviewed by the Commission's Technical Committee and approved by the Commission's Summer Flounder Management Board (SF Board). The correspondence indicates that the Commission-approved management programs are projected to restrict 2013 recreational summer flounder coastwide landings consistent with the state-specific requirements established by the Technical Committee and SF Board through the Commission process.

Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator finds that the recreational summer flounder fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the individual states for 2013 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106(a), respectively. According to § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and landing summer flounder in a state with an approved conservation equivalency program shall not be subject to Federal measures, and shall instead be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) has been amended to recognize state-implemented measures as conservation equivalent of the coastwide recreational management measures for 2013. For clarity, the 2013 summer flounder management measures adopted by the individual states vary according to the state of landing, as specified in Table 1.

This final rule implements the Council and Commission's recommended scup recreational management measures for 2013 in Federal waters. The 2013 scup recreational harvest limit is 7.55 million lb (3,425 mt), as published in final rule (December 31, 2012; 77 FR 76942). Estimated 2012 scup recreational landings are 4.06 million lb (1,842 mt), well below the 2013 recreational harvest limit; therefore, no reduction in landings is needed. The measures for the 2013 scup recreational fishery are for a 10-inch (25.4-cm) minimum fish size, a 30-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31.

This final rule implements the Council's recommended recreational management measures to reduce landings for black sea bass. The 2013 black sea bass recreational harvest limit is 2.26 million lb (1,026 mt). The 2012 recreational harvest limit was 1.32 million lb (599 mt), and the projected 2012 recreational landings were 2.99 million lb (1,356 mt). The projected 2012 landings are above the 2012 recreational harvest limit and both the previously established and the new recreational harvest limit for 2013. The Council and the Commission, therefore, needed to establish management measures to reduce landings in 2013 to a level below the 2013 recreational harvest limit. The majority of the recreational black sea bass fishery occurs in state waters. As such, the Commission agreed to make more significant changes to the state-waters measures to ensure the 2013 recreational harvest limit is not exceeded. Specifically, at the December 2012 meeting, the available data indicated that the Commission needed to reduce landings by 32 percent. However, data corrections and updates to the average weight per fish have resulted in the Commission needing to reduce landings by 24 percent as compared to 2012. In a letter dated May 16, 2013, the Commission has indicated that there was a reasonable likelihood that the state measures, including the proposed measures for Connecticut, would constrain recreational landings to the recreational harvest limit.

In light of the Commission's changes to the state-water measures, this final rule implements a 12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum fish size and 20-fish possession limit for open seasons of May 19—October 14 and November 1-December 31.

NMFS received one comment regarding the proposed recreational management measures and increase to the black sea bass specifications. The commenter stated that there was no factual reason for an increase in the catch limits and that the catch limits for all three species should be reduced by 25 percent to prevent extinction. NMFS disagrees with these statements. The catch limits that were established for summer flounder and scup in the specifications final rule (December 31, 2012; 77 FR 76942) and the increase to the black sea bass specifications established in this rule are based on the best available scientific information and on recommendations of the Council's SSC. None of these species is overfished or experiencing overfishing, and, therefore, not in danger of extinction.

The Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule implementing the 2013 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational management measures and 2013 and 2014 black sea bass specifications is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

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

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). NMFS has determined that a delay in this rule's effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest because it would undermine the intent of the rule, which is to promote the optimal utilization and conservation of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources. This action increases the trip limit for the recreational scup fishery in Federal waters and allows federally permitted charter/party vessels to be subject to the new, liberalized summer flounder measures in their respective states, without resulting in overfishing. Because some states' summer flounder fisheries are already open or will open during the 30-day period, federally permitted charter/party vessels would be restricted to the existing summer flounder coastwide regulations (18-inch (45.7-cm) minimum size and a 2-fish per person possession limit) until the Federal regulations are effective. This would unnecessarily disadvantage the federally permitted vessels, which would be subject to the more restrictive measures while state-licensed vessels could be engaged in fishing activities under this year's management measures. In addition, this rule increases the possession limit for scup, expanding fishing opportunities for fishermen that would otherwise be constrained under the current measures, without resulting in overfishing. If the effectiveness of this final rule were delayed for 30 days, the fishery would likely forego some amount of landings and revenues during the delay period. While these restrictions would be alleviated after this rule becomes effective, fishermen may be not able to recoup the lost economic opportunity of foregone trips that would result from delaying the effectiveness of this action.

For these reasons, the 30-day delay is waived and this rule will become effective on the date of filing in the Federal Register.

This final rule includes is the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts described in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA and SEA are available from the Council and NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

A description of the reasons why the 2013 recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are being implemented, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule implementing both actions are explained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule, and are not repeated here.

One comment was received on the proposed rule; however, it did not address the IRFA or economic analysis and did not result in any changes to the rule.

The recreational management measures could affect any of the 852 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2012. However, only 355 vessels reported active participation in the 2012 recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries, based on Vessel Trip Reports where the amount of kept summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass is greater than zero on a reported charter/party trip. The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers commercial fishing entities (NAICS code 114111) to be small entities if they have no more than $4 million in annual sales, while the size standard for charter/party operators (part of NAICS code 487210) is $7 million in sales. Because any vessel at any time may be issued an open access charter/party summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass permit, it is difficult to determine how many vessels or owners will participate in this fishery in a given year. Although some firms own more than one vessel, available data make it difficult to reliably identify ownership control over more than one vessel. Thus, all of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the SBA size standards for charter/party fishing businesses ($7.0 million in annual gross sales). Therefore, there are no disproportionate effects on small versus large entities.

No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.

In seeking to minimize the impact of recreational management measures (minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season) on small entities (i.e., Federal party/charter permit holders), NMFS is constrained to implementing measures that meet the conservation objectives of the FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Act. Management measures must provide sufficient constraints on recreational landings, such that the established recreational harvest limits have a low likelihood of being exceeded, which might lead to overfishing the stock. This rule maintains the status quo recreational management measures for summer flounder, implements less restrictive management measures for scup, and slightly more restrictive measures for black sea bass in Federal waters.

Summer flounder alternatives. The alternatives examined by the Council and forwarded for consideration by NMFS consisted of the non-preferred alternative of coastwide measures (an 18-inch (45.7-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish per person possession limit, and open season from May 1 through September 30), and the preferred alternative of state-by-state conservation equivalency (see Table 2 for measures) with a precautionary default backstop (status quo). These were alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, in the Council's SEA/RIR/IRFA. These two alternatives were determined by the Council to provide a high probability of constraining recreational landings to levels at or below the 2013 recreational harvest limit. Therefore, either alternative recreational management system could be considered for implementation by NMFS, as the critical metric of satisfying the regulatory and statutory requirements would likely be met by either.

Next, NMFS considered the recommendation of both the Council and Commission. Both groups recommended implementation of state-by-state conservation equivalency, with a precautionary default backstop. The recommendations of both groups were not unanimous: Some Council and Commission members objected to the use of conservation equivalency, stating a preference for coastwide measures.

For NMFS to disapprove the Council's recommendation for conservation equivalency and substitute coastwide management measures, NMFS must reasonably demonstrate that the recommended measures are either inconsistent with applicable law or that the conservation objectives of the FMP will not be achieved by implementing conservation equivalency. NMFS does not find the Council and Commission's recommendation to be inconsistent with the implementing regulations of the FMP at § 648.100 or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the 10 National Standards.

The additional metric for consideration by NMFS, applicable to the FRFA, is examination of the economic impacts of the alternatives on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. As previously stated, both coastwide measures (alternative 1) and conservation equivalency (alternative 2) are projected to achieve the conservation objectives for the 2013 summer flounder recreational fishery. However, the economic impacts of the two alternatives are not projected to be equal in the Council's analyses: The economic impacts on small entities under the coastwide measures management system would vary in comparison to the conservation equivalency system, dependent on the specific state wherein the small entities operate.

Quantitative analyses of the economic impacts associated with conservation equivalency measures are not available. This is because the development of the individual state measures occurs concurrent to the NMFS rulemaking process to ensure timely implementation of final measures for the 2013 recreational fishery; thus, the specific measures implemented by states are not available for economic impact analyses. Instead, qualitative methods were utilized by the Council to assess the relative impact of conservation equivalency (alternative 2) to coastwide measures (alternative 1). The Council analysis concluded, and NMFS agrees, that conservation equivalency is expected to minimize impacts on small entities because individual states can develop specific summer flounder management measures that allow the fishery to operate during each state's critical fishing periods while still achieving conservation goals.

NMFS is implementing the Council and Commission's recommended state-by-state conservation equivalency measures because: (1) NMFS finds no compelling reason to disapprove the Council and Commission's recommended 2013 management system, as the management measures contained in conservation equivalency are projected to provide the necessary restriction on recreational landings to prevent the recreational harvest limit from being exceeded; and (2) the net economic impact to small entities on a coastwide basis are expected to be mitigated, to the extent practicable, for a much larger percentage of small entities.

Scup alternatives. NMFS is implementing the Council's preferred measures as the Federal water measures for the 2013 fishing year: A 10-inch (25.4-cm) minimum fish size; a 30-fish per person possession limit; and year-round open season. Similar to the summer flounder discussion, this suite of scup measures (alternative 2) provides the greatest economic opportunity for small entities from the alternatives available by providing the maximum fishing opportunity in Federal waters that also meets the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and achieves the conservation objectives for 2013. Alternative 1 for a 10.5-inch (26.7-cm) minimum fish size, 20-fish per person possession limit, and year-round open season contained measures that had higher impacts on small entities fishing in Federal waters, as it contains more restrictive measures than would be necessary to satisfy the management objectives, and thus this alternative was not implemented.

Black sea bass alternatives. As previously stated in the preamble, individual states have developed and implemented measures for use in state waters. This rule implements the Council's preferred measures (Alternative 2 in the Council's SEA/RIR/IRFA): A 12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum fish size and a 22-fish possession limit for the May 19-October 14 and November 1-December 31 fishing seasons. This alternative provides the greatest associated economic opportunities to small entities of the measures considered for Federal waters that also meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the 2013 fishery. Alternative 1 (a 12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum fish size, a 25-fish per person possession limit, and open season of May 19 through October 14 and November 1 through December 31; and a 12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum fish size, a 15-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of January 1-February 28), does not satisfy the management objectives of the FMP, as a reduction in landings as compared to 2012 is necessary, and thus this alternative was not implemented.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter permits issued for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the following Web site: http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows: