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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0282-E, dated November 27, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB 212, AB 412, and AB 412EP helicopters. EASA advises of two reports of oil leakage from the main transmission lubricating system oil outlet hose, part number 70-061L275W210A, caused by damage on the hose. EASA further states an investigation has not determined the root cause, but that relative movement between the data plate and the hose assembly may have been a contributing factor. EASA advises that if not corrected, this condition could lead to transmission lubricating system failure and reduced control of the helicopter.

As a result, EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0282-E requires inspecting the portion of the hose accessible through the cargo hook opening for damage within 10 flight hours, and every 100 flight hours thereafter, and inspecting the portion of the hose accessible through the left side of the pylon for damage within 35 flight hours, and every 25 flight hours thereafter. If there is damage to the hose, EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0282-E requires replacing the hose with a serviceable hose.

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

We reviewed Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 412-137, dated November 26, 2013. BT No. 412-137 describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the stainless steel hose braiding beneath the hose data plates for damage, fretting, or broken wires.

This AD requires:

• Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspecting the stainless steel hose braiding for damage, fretting, and broken wires in the area below the transmission oil sump, in the external cargo hook opening.

• Within 35 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, inspecting the stainless steel hose braiding for damage, fretting, and broken wires in the area of the transmission oil sump behind the left side pylon access door.

• If there is any damage, fretting, or any broken wires, replacing the hose before further flight.

This AD does not apply to Model AB 212 or AB 412EP helicopters, as these models are not type-certificated in the U.S.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. Operators.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are none of these products on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This AD is prompted by AD No. 2013-0187, dated August 16, 2013 (AD 2013-0187), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters. EASA advises of a report of a cracked pinion, part number (P/N) 412-040-301-101, installed in the rotor brake quill, P/N 412-040-123-103, on an AB412 helicopter. EASA states that the crack was discovered by a magnetic particle inspection during a scheduled overhaul of the rotor brake quill. EASA further states that an investigation revealed the crack was due to residual stress generated during the manufacturing process, and that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the pinion with detachment of parts inside the transmission that could cause its malfunction or jamming, finally resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2013-0187 requires magnetic particle inspecting the rotor brake pinion, and if there is a crack, replacing the rotor brake pinion.

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

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-135, Revision A, dated July 29, 2013, which describes procedures for a one-time magnetic particle inspection of the rotor brake pinion, P/N 412-040- 301-101, installed on Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters.

This AD requires, within 100 hours time-in-service, magnetic particle inspecting the rotor brake pinion, P/N 412-040-301-101, for a crack. If there is a crack, this AD requires replacing the pinion before further flight.

The EASA AD does not apply to pinions installed in a rotor brake quill assembly that has been overhauled, while this AD does.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. operators.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are none of these products on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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 supersede AD 2003-01-04, Amendment 39-13015 (68 FR 1955, January 15, 2003) (AD 2003-01-04). AD 2003-01-04 applied to certain BHTI Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters. AD 2003-01-04 required inspecting each grip, reporting certain inspection results to the FAA, and performing additional inspections, repair, or replacement depending on whether a crack or delamination was found. AD 2003-01-04 also required determining and recording the hours TIS and the engine start/stop cycles for each grip on a component history card or equivalent record.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23638) and proposed to require the same actions as AD 2003-01-04 but add a retirement life to certain grips and expand the applicability to include the Model 210 helicopter and additional part-numbered grips. Specifically, the NPRM proposed:

• Within 10 hours TIS, determining and recording the hours TIS and the engine start/stop cycles for each grip on a component history card or equivalent record.

• Within 10 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, visually inspecting the exposed surfaces of the upper and lower tangs of each grip for a crack, using a 10-power or higher magnifying glass.

• At specified intervals, depending on the hours TIS or the engine start/stop cycles, conducting initial and repetitive ultrasonic (UT) inspections of each grip.

• At intervals not to exceed 1,200 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first, inspecting each buffer pad on the tang inner surfaces for delamination, and removing the buffer pad and inspecting the grip surface for corrosion and other damage if there is delamination.

• Within 2,400 hours TIS or at the next overhaul of the main rotor hub, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,400 hours TIS, inspecting the surface of each affected grip for corrosion or other damage and conducting a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the grip for a crack.

• Before further flight, repairing or replacing any grip that has a crack, corrosion, or other damage.

• Before further flight, removing any grip, part number (P/N) 204-011-121-009 or ASI-4011-121-9, that has 15,000 or more hours TIS; and removing any grip, P/N 204-011-121-121, that has 25,000 or more hours TIS.

• Establishing a new retirement life of 15,000 hours TIS for grip, P/N 204-011-121-009 or ASI-4011-121-9, and 25,000 hours TIS for grip, P/N 204-011-121-121.

This AD was prompted by the discovery of additional cracked grips. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a grip, separation of a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

After our NPRM (77 FR 23638, April 20, 2012) was published, we received comments from six commenters.

Alpine Helicopters Ltd., Eagle Copters Ltd., Wildcat Helicopters, Inc., and two commenters from BHTI disagreed with the proposed life limit because the inspection procedures are sufficient to detect a crack in the grips.

We do not agree. The life limits for the -009 and -121 grips are necessary to correct the unsafe condition. While the UT inspections of the grips have increased the level of safety because grips have been discovered with a crack using this technique, we disagree with relying solely on the repetitive UT inspections of the lower grip tang without establishing a retirement life. Using a safety-by-inspection approach for a critical component has been shown to have an inherent amount of risk. Early failures of these grips, which have not been attributed to mechanical or other damage, have indicated the need to establish a retirement life to avoid possible cracking in the future.

Eagle Copters, Ltd., and Wildcat Helicopters, Inc., requested that we consider implementing shorter inspection intervals or a higher level of training and experience to complete the inspections.

We disagree because we do not believe shorter inspection intervals or a higher level of training would provide an adequate long term solution to correct the unsafe condition. The risk of the onset of fatigue cracking in a grip from other than induced damage and its subsequent failure continually increases the further the part's safe-life (retirement life) is exceeded.

Eagle Copters Ltd., Wildcat Helicopters, Inc., Alpine Helicopters Ltd., and one commenter from BHTI expressed concern that a sufficient number of replacement parts will not be available. Eagle Copters Ltd., and Wildcat Helicopters, Inc., specifically requested that affected grips with no known time-in-service be allowed to remain in service for up to 3 years.

We disagree. While every effort is made to avoid grounding of aircraft, the FAA must nonetheless take action to correct an unsafe condition, such as the one in this case.

Eagle Copters, Ltd., and Wildcat Helicopters Inc., requested that we increase the retirement life of the grips. Eagle Copters, Inc. requested that we increase the retirement life of the -009 grip from 15,000 hours TIS to 25,000 hours TIS, because a life limit of 15,000 hours TIS is not justified based on service history of the -009 grip. Wildcat Helicopters, Inc., requested that we increase the retirement life of the -009 and -121 grip to 30,000 hours TIS.

Similarly, Satria Air Service (SAS) requested that we conduct further research on these failures and questioned our calculation of the proposed life limits. SAS stated that the proposed retirement life for the -121 grip is higher than the -009 grip even though the -121 grip is more prone to failure, which would indicate the need for a lower retirement life. SAS further stated that in a recent failure, the -121 grip had only accumulated 4,900 hours TIS, which is less than the proposed retirement life of 25,000 hours TIS. SAS also noted the 150 hour TIS repetitive inspection interval of the -121 grip is lower than the 400 hour TIS repetitive inspection interval for the -009 grip, which indicates there is a reason for the shorter inspection interval on the -121 grip.

We disagree with the request to increase the life limits of the grips, as this would not provide an acceptable level of safety in addressing the unsafe condition. The retirement lives for the -009 and -121 grips were determined using a crack initiation methodology (e.g., using the S-N curves and Miner's Rule). This method accounts for damage induced by fatigue loading but does not account for flaws and defects due to manufacturing or in-service conditions. The apparent discrepancy raised by the commenters can be explained by different sets of material properties being used to determine the retirement lives and inspection intervals for the grips. The material for the -121 grips was originally changed because of stress corrosion cracking that was occurring in the barrel of the -009 grips. Different materials will have varying levels for susceptibility to different types of damage. A more “failure prone” component may not necessarily warrant a lower retirement life. Early failures can occur from a crack initiating from damage induced by other than fatigue. Several of the failed -121 grips were also found with cracking at multiple origins. This would explain the apparent discrepancy of -121 grips having a shorter interval for UT inspections but yet a higher retirement life.

SAS requested that we change the proposed method for calculating the life of a grip with an unknown total of hours TIS, as it is impractical because grips are often in storage as spare parts or as a subcomponent of a main rotor hub assembly which may have been out of service. The commenter suggested assigning a fixed high time to a time since new unknown part, to allow an operator to plan for replacement at the next scheduled overhaul.

We partially agree. We agree that establishing a realistic in-service life for a component which is currently unlimited and only required to be replaced when damaged or corroded beyond repair is difficult. We disagree that the proposed method should be changed, however, because it is the same method as that in AD 2003-01-04 (68 FR 1955, January 15, 2003); only the number of hours TIS have been revised with our proposal. As far as allowing an operator time to plan for replacing a part, the proposed life limits are based on the actions we determine necessary to address the unsafe condition.

We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined that an 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 except for minor editorial changes. In paragraph (a) of this AD, the reference to “the following model helicopters” has been changed to reference “the model helicopters listed in Table 1 to Paragraph (a) of this AD” instead. “Figure 1 to Paragraph (f)” has been changed to reference “Figure 1 to Paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(4)(ii).” “Table 2 to Paragraph (f)” has been changed to reference “Table 2 to Paragraph (f)(3).” “Note 1 to Paragraph (f)” has been changed to reference “Note 1 to Paragraph (f)(3).” “Note 2 to Paragraph (f)” has been changed to reference “Note 2 to Paragraph (f)(4).” These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (77 FR 23638, April 20, 2012) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed the following BHTI service information:

• Operations Safety Notices 204-85-6, 205-85-9, and 212-85-13, all dated November 14, 1985, (one notice with 3 identification numbers), which describe a grip with a crack in the lower tang that was returned by an operator;

• Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 212-94-92, Revision A, dated March 13, 1995, which describes procedures for inspection and overhaul requirements of certain grips;

• ASB No. 204-02-58, dated November 26, 2002; ASB No. 205-02-88, dated November 26, 2002; and ASB No. 210-08-02, dated September 10, 2008. These ASBs specify a UT inspection of certain grips;

• ASB No. 205B-02-39, Revision B, dated November 22, 2002, and ASB No. 212-02-116, Revision A, dated October 30, 2002, which specify a UT inspection of certain grips and include the Nondestructive Inspection Procedure, Log No. 00-340, Revision E, dated April 9, 2002; and

• Information Letter 204-08-23, 205-08-38, 205B-08-21, and 212-08-62, Revision A, dated July 23, 2008 (one letter issued with 4 identification numbers), which describes a new, improved replacement grip, P/N 204-011-121-125, that would not require the repetitive UT inspections and would have a retirement life of 25,000 hours TIS or a 500,000 Retirement Index Number (RIN), whichever comes first.

This AD requires life limits for grip P/Ns 204-011-121-009, 204-011-121-121, and ASI-4011-121-9. The manufacturer's service bulletins do not specify a service life for these grips. Also, this AD applies to grip P/N ASI-4011-121-9, which is produced under an FAA parts manufacturing approval, and the manufacturer's service bulletins do not address this particular grip.

We estimate that this AD will affect 700 helicopters of U.S. registry, and it will take approximately 7 work hours to create and maintain the records, 6.25 work hours to conduct the inspections, and 20 work hours to replace a set of grips at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $56,385 for a replacement set of grips. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,596,875 for the entire fleet, assuming the grip set (2 grips) is replaced on 100 helicopters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, approved January 17, 2014), HUD has changed the name of the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC) to the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH). OLHCHH will perform all of the functions of the former OHHLHC. As a result of this change, this final rule makes conforming changes to 24 CFR parts 30 and 35. Specifically, HUD's civil money penalty regulations at § 30.65(a) identifies the Director of OHHLHC as the official with the authority to initiate a civil money penalty action against any person who has failed to comply with the lead-based paint disclosure requirements set out in 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(1). Since OHHLHC no longer exists, this provision is being updated in this final rule to name the Director of OLHCHH to carry out this function. In addition, § 35.1330(a)(4)(iii) of HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule identifies OHHLHC as the approval authority, after consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, for lead-safe work practices courses that may qualify supervisors and workers to perform interim controls of lead-based paint hazards. This final rule updates this provision to name the OLHCHH to carry out this function. This section is also being updated to provide the current telephone number for requesting the list of approved courses and the current name of the Federal service that persons with hearing or speech impediments may use for making the request call, toll free.

This final rule shall constitute notice that all references to OHHLHC in any document, statement, or other communication made before the effective date of this rule shall be deemed to be references to OLHCHH.

HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR 10.1). For the following reasons, HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without first soliciting public comment.

This final rule makes nomenclature changes to §§ 30.65(a) and 35.1330(a)(4)(iii). As a result of internal HUD organizational changes, the office referred to in HUD's currently codified regulations no longer exists as it did when these sections were issued. This final rule merely replaces references to “Director of the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control” and “Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control” with references to “Director of the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes” and “Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes,” respectively. Neither of these changes makes substantive change to §§ 30.65(a) or 35.1330(a)(4)(iii). Therefore, HUD determined that it is unnecessary to publish this rule for public comment prior to publishing the rule for effect.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits. As discussed above in this preamble, this final rule updates HUD's regulations to reflect HUD's decision to rename the office listed in §§ 30.65(a) and 35.1330(a)(4)(iii). As a result, this rule was determined to not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an agency to conduct regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since notice and comment rulemaking is not necessary for this final rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts 30 and 35 as follows:

The City of San Francisco Public Works Department has requested a temporary change to the operation of the 3rd Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 7 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2014 to allow the public to cross the bridge to participate in the scheduled San Francisco Marathon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. The drawspan can be operated upon one hour advance notice for emergencies requiring the passage of waterway traffic.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies upon one hour advance notice and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on May 15, 2014, and the fireworks display would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

Execpro Services will sponsor a fireworks display on July 5, 2014, in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe near Incline Village, NV in approximate position 39°13′56″ N, 119°56′23″ W (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18665. This safety zone establishes a temporary restricted area on the waters 100 feet surrounding the fireworks barge during the loading, transit and arrival of the pyrotechnics from the loading site to the launch site and until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks barge within a radius of 560 feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under a fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. on July 3, 2014, the fireworks barge will be loaded at Obexer's Marina in Homewood, CA. From 3 p.m. on July 3, 2014 to 7 a.m. on July 4, 2014, the loaded barge will transit from Obexer's Marina to the launch site near Incline Village, NV in approximate position 39°13′56″ N, 119°56′23″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2014, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 560 feet in approximate position 39°13′56″ N, 119°56′23″ W (NAD 83) for the Execpro Services Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

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

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 25, 2014 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; Arts Project Cherry Grove Pride Week Fireworks Display; Great South Bay; Cherry Grove, Fire Island, NY” in the Federal Register (79 FR 22916). No public comments were received on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Arts Project Cherry Grove Pride Week fireworks display is scheduled for June 21, 2014. The comment period for the NPRM associated with this event expired on May 27, 2014 providing insufficient time for a 30 day effective period. The event sponsor is unwilling and unable to postpone the event because of financial and logistical concerns. The fireworks display is scheduled to coincide with the Arts Project Cherry Grove Pride Week. Delaying the event does not align with that goal and the many sponsors helping to fund this event would be impacted as they have done so with the expectation that it will coincide with Pride Week activities. Furthermore, the planning and coordination with local authorities to support this event was based around a June 21, 2014 event date with a June 22, 2014 rain date and any last minute changes would be difficult to accommodate.

A safety zone is needed to protect the safety of life and property on navigable waters from the hazards associated with this event and it would be contrary to public interest to delay promulgating this rule by delaying the effective date.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

This temporary rule is necessary to promote the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Arts Project Cherry Grove Pride Week fireworks display in Great South Bay near Cherry Grove, Fire Island, NY.

The effective dates of the temporary final rule are June 21 2014 through June 22, 2014. The effective dates of this regulation have changed from those listed in the NPRM because the event sponsor used the wrong dates, a June 28, 2014 event date with a June 29, 2014 rain date, in their marine event application to the Coast Guard. The event is scheduled as part of Pride Week activities in Cherry Grove, NY which end on June 22, 2014. No comments were received on the proposed rule.

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

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

The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking would not be a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated area will be of limited duration, the area covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways and waterway users may transit around the area. Also, mariners may request permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated representative to transit the zone.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated area during the effective period. The temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The regulated area will be of limited size and of short duration and mariners may request permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated representative to transit the zone. Notifications will be made to the maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 10 a.m. on July 2, 2014 until 8 a.m. on July 4, 2014, the fireworks barge will be loading off of Dutra Corporation Yard in Rio Vista, CA. From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4, 2014 the loaded barge will transit from Dutra Corporation Yard to the launch site near Venice Island, CA in approximate position 38°03′19″ N, 121°31′54″ W (NAD83). Upon the commencement of the 20 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 38°03′19″ N, 121°31′54″ W (NAD83) for the Delta Independence Day Celebration Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 14. This safety zone will be in effect from 10 a.m. on July 2, 2014 to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

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

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers is amending the regulations in 33 CFR Part 334 by establishing a new permanent danger zone, in the waters of the York River off Cheatham Annex in York County, Virginia. The modification to the regulations is described below.

The proposed rule was published in the September 18, 2013 issue of the Federal Register (76 FR 62692), and its regulations.gov docket number is COE-2013-0012. There were nineteen comments received in response to the proposed rule from the public as well as state and federal agencies. Many of the comments received from the public concerned the proposed danger zone restricting public and commercial use of this portion of the York River, negative impacts to commercial and recreational fishing and oyster harvesting, concerns about the Navy shooting bullets over and into the river, negative impacts to persons using Queens Creek, visibility of the red flags and lights indicating the shooting range is active, the potential for the Navy to construct an indoor shooting range as an alternative to the existing shooting range, and some questioned why the danger zone was necessary now since there have been no safety issues to date. Two comments received were in support of the proposed danger zone. The comments are addressed below.

The Navy has been conducting live fire training at the shooting range on Cheatham Annex adjacent to the York River for decades. The Navy does not shoot out into the York River. The shooting range is separated from the York River by a berm which prevents rounds from escaping the range and going into the York River. Only experienced marksmen use this range and only small caliber rounds are allowed on this range; no large caliber or machine guns are permitted. The area has been marked on navigation charts as a danger zone for years. The danger zone will better protect the public from any potential errant rounds that might escape the berm separating the range from the York River. The danger zone does not ban persons from transiting the area, and the Navy monitors the danger zone using spotters and/or cameras and will cease firing when vessels or persons enter the danger zone. The Navy stated that the Department of Defense policy for the protection of a surface danger zone is more conservative than private sector shooting ranges. The Navy also stated that it has a perfect safety record with respect to public safety at this range.

There were numerous comments related to commercial and recreational fishing uses of this portion of the York River as well as oyster harvesting in the danger zone. The Navy has been operating the range such that once persons or vessels enter the danger zone they cease firing until the danger zone is clear. This operation has been in place for years and the Navy will continue to operate the range in this same manner. There should be no impact to public use of this portion of the York River as a result of this amendment to the regulations.

Numerous comments were received regarding issues with visibility of the flags and lights used to indicate the range is in use. Red flags are used during the daytime to alert the public to live fire activities while red lights are used at night. The Navy has indicated that they will install larger lights in order to address the visibility issue at night. In addition, the Navy will install a new flagpole which is higher and install a larger sized flag to increase its visibility during daylight hours.

Numerous comments were received from users of Queens Creek, located just upstream of the danger zone. They were concerned this amendment to the regulations would impact their ability to access the York River. As addressed above, the danger zone will not affect persons utilizing the York River from Queens Creek.

Multiple comments were made regarding an indoor shooting range as an alternative to the existing outdoor range and the danger zone. The Navy has indicated that an indoor range would take approximately 5 years to construct and become operational. The existing range has been in use for decades and with little negative impact on the public use of the York River and its operation has resulted in no public safety issues. Due to the time frame required to construct another facility the Corps believes the existing facility with the danger zone is the most practicable as it allows the Navy to continue their required training while ensuring public safety.

Numerous persons questioned why the Navy was doing this now since the range has been in use for so long. Modifying the regulation will better protect citizens from potential hazards associated with the operation of the small arms training range on Cheatham Annex.

The United States Coast Guard submitted recommended changes to the proposed regulation that would make its intent clearer. The Coast Guard recommended using a separate paragraph for the sentence stating that the Navy will not use the range when visibility is less than the maximum range of the weapons being used. They also recommended adding at the end of this sentence “or while a vessel is within the danger zone” to address the expected cease fire when vessels transit through the danger zone. We concur with these changes and as a result we modified the regulation.

a. Review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

b. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps determined that this regulation would have practically no economic impact on the public nor would it result in any anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This regulation will have no significant economic impact on small entities.

c. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment has been prepared and it may be reviewed at the district office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This final rule does not impose an enforceable duty on the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

The SIP is a living document which the State revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On March 13, 2012 (77 FR 14862), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedures for the State of Nevada. On March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17334), August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936), September 27, 2012 (77 FR 59321), October 5, 2012 (77 FR 60915), and October 18, 2012 (77 FR 64039), EPA amended the tables listing EPA-approved regulations and statutes for the State of Nevada in 40 CFR 52.1470(c) to account for submitted regulations and statutory provisions included in those individual SIP revision actions.

In this document, EPA is publishing an updated set of tables listing the regulatory (i.e., IBR) materials in the Nevada SIP taking into account the additions, deletions, and revisions to those materials as set forth in the above listed SIP actions. In addition, EPA has found certain errors in certain entries listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c), as amended by the SIP actions listed above, and is correcting them in this document. These include:

• The erroneous listing of 9/24/04 as the State effective date for the version of NAC 445B.001 (“Definitions”) approved by EPA at 73 FR 19144 (April 9, 2008)(the correct date is 1/1/07) and the erroneous listing of 12/4/76 as the State effective date for the version of NAC 445B.002 (“Act” defined) approved by EPA at 71 FR 15040 (3/27/06)(the correct date is 8/28/79);

• the inadvertent omissions of Clark County section 18, subsections 18.6 through 18.12, approved at 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981), and Clark County section 52, subsection 52.10, approved at 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981);

• a typographical error regarding the EPA approval date for a number of Washoe County regulations that should have been shown as approved at 37 FR 15080 (July 27, 1972) instead of 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973);

• the inadvertent listing of certain Washoe County regulations, sections 030.3105 (“Hazardous materials processes”), 030.3107 (related to permit transfer fees), and 030.3108 (related to permit replacement cost), which were deleted without replacement from the SIP at 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009);

• the erroneous identification of 5/18/10 and 3/6/12 as the local effective dates for amended Clark County sections 0 and 12, respectively, in the final rule taking action on those amended rules (77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012) (the correct date for both is 3/20/12);

• the inadvertent omission of the submittal date (8/30/12) for Washoe County regulations 030.235 and 030.970A (i.e., 8/30/12)(see 77 FR 60915, October 5, 2012); and

• the inadvertent listing of an entry for EPA's approval of Washoe County regulation 030.970 (subsection A only) as “030.970A” (see 77 FR 60915, October 5, 2012).

In this action, EPA is doing the following:

A. Announcing an update to the IBR material as of December 31, 2013;

B. Correcting certain listings in paragraph 52.1470(c) as described above; and

C. Revising the entries in paragraphs 52.1470(b) and (c) to reflect the update and corrections.

EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 an 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 Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental affects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7929, 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Nevada SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for the State of Nevada.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

Docket. EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0408. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Copyrighted materials are available only in hard copy. The EPA DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

In this action, EPA is approving 21 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in samples collected under SDWA. Regulated parties required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other methods similarly approved through previous expedited actions in 40 CFR Part 141 Appendix A to Subpart C and on EPA's drinking water methods Web site at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_expedited.cfm.

When EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (i.e., as effective as a method that has already been promulgated in the regulations), SDWA allows EPA to approve the use of the alternative method through publication in the Federal Register . (See Section 1401(1) of SDWA.) EPA is using this streamlined approval authority to make 21 additional methods available for determining contaminant concentrations in samples collected under SDWA. EPA has determined that, for each contaminant or group of contaminants listed in Section III, the additional testing methods being approved in this action are as effective as one or more of the testing methods already approved in the regulations for those contaminants. Section 1401(1) of SDWA states that the newly approved methods “shall be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing procedures listed in the regulation.” Accordingly, this action makes these additional 21 analytical methods legally available as options for meeting EPA's monitoring requirements.

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

EPA is approving 21 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. By means of this rule, these 21 methods are added to Appendix A to Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 141.

1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods). EPA compared the most recent online versions of 14 Standard Methods to earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. Changes between the approved version and the most recent version of each method are summarized in Smith and Wendelken (2013a). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., corrections of errors, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). The updated online versions listed in the following table are the same as the earlier approved versions with respect to the chemistry and microbiology, sample handling protocols, and method performance data. For all of these reasons, EPA has concluded that the updated online versions are equally effective relative to those that are currently approved in the regulations. Therefore, EPA is approving the use of the 14 updated Standard Methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

The online versions of Standard Methods are available at http://www.standardmethods.org.

2. ASTM International. EPA compared the most recent versions of three ASTM International methods (ASTM Methods D512-12 B, D3223-12, and D4327-11) to the earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR 141 and 143. Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are summarized in Smith (2013). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., updated references, definitions, terminology, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). The revised methods are the same as the approved versions with respect to sample collection and handling protocols, sample preparation, analytical methodology, and method performance data; thus, EPA finds they are equally effective relative to the approved methods.

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

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

1. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Colilert-18®. Colilert-18® is an approved commercial medium capable of simultaneous detection of total coliform and Escherichia coli bacteria. The use of this medium is described in Standard Method 9223 B, 21st edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 2005b). Standard Method 9223 B is approved for determination of total coliform bacteria and E. coli under the Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) (USEPA 2013) as cited at 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5). Colilert-18® is a minor variation of an already approved medium, and was determined to be applicable to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (Dougherty 1996). EPA is using today's action to clarify that Colilert-18® is itself an approved medium when used as described in Standard Method 9223 B for determining total coliform bacteria and E. coli in drinking water under the RTCR. Accordingly, EPA is adding the Colilert-18® medium and methodology as described in Standard Method 9223 B to the list of alternative testing methods in Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141. Colilert-18® is available from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, ME 04092, and also at http://www.idexx.com.

2. Hach Company Method 10260—Determination of Chlorinated Oxidants (Free and Total) in Water using Disposable Planar Reagent-Filled Cuvettes and Mesofluidic Channel Colorimetry (Hach Company 2013a). The Hach Company Method 10260 uses disposable planar reagent-filled cuvettes (PRFC) to measure free, total and combined chlorine as an optional alternate test procedure to Standard Method 4500-Cl G (APHA 1998) which is approved in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2) for determination of free and total chlorine, and at 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1) for determination of free, total and combined chlorine. In this method, a mesofluidic pump system draws a water sample through a cuvette that is prefilled with the reagents required to perform DPD (N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine) colorimetric chlorine tests. The sample is then drawn to an optical channel where the chlorine level is measured at a wavelength between 490 and 530 nm. Automation of the DPD determination relative to the manual procedure described in the approved method reduces errors associated with reagent addition, mixing and color development. Three laboratories analyzed a variety of drinking water matrices (e.g., low ionic strength, high ionic strength, and tap water samples derived from both surface water and ground water sources). The performance characteristics of the Hach Method 10260 were compared to the performance characteristics of the approved method. The validation study report (Hach 2013b) summarizes the results obtained from the multi-laboratory study and indicates that Hach Method 10260 is equally as effective as Standard Method 4500-Cl G for the colorimetric determination of free and total chlorine in drinking water. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2013b). EPA is thus approving Hach Method 10260 as an alternate method to Standard Method 4500-Cl G for the analysis of free and total chlorine in drinking water. Hach Method 10260 is available from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539, and also at www.hach.com.

3. Palintest Ltd ChlordioX Plus Method—Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Amperometry using Disposable Sensors (Palintest Ltd 2013). The Palintest Ltd ChlordioX Plus uses recyclable disposable sensors for amperometric detection of chlorine dioxide and the disinfection byproduct, chlorite, in drinking water. Standard Method 4500-ClO 2 E (APHA 1998) is an amperometric titration method that is currently approved in the regulations at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2) and 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1) for determination of chlorine dioxide in drinking water; it is also cited in the regulations at 40 CFR 141.131(b)(1) for routine daily monitoring of chlorite. The approved method requires experienced analysts and is not portable, which limits options for field and site testing. The ChlordioX Plus method is associated with a portable sensor driven instrument and chlorine dioxide standards are available, which can be used with the instrument. Chlorine dioxide is reduced at the surface of the sensor and the current produced is directly proportional to the chlorine dioxide level in the sample. The chlorite level can be determined from a sample duplicate by oxidation of iodide to iodine. The method performance of the ChlordioX Plus method was compared to the performance of Standard Method 4500-ClO 2 E at three public drinking water utilities that use chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection. A variety of samples, including drinking water samples from both surface and ground water sources, were fortified with known chlorine dioxide and chlorite concentrations and then analyzed by each method. The results of the validation study are summarized in Smith and Wendelken (2013c). EPA has determined that the ChlordioX Plus method is equally as effective as the approved method, Standard Method 4500-ClO 2 E. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2013c). Therefore, EPA is approving the ChlordioX Plus method for determining chlorine dioxide and chlorite in drinking water. A copy of the method can be obtained by contacting Palintest Ltd, 1455 Jamike Avenue (Suite 100), Erlanger, KY 41018.

4. Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies Tecta EC/TC Method—Presence/Absence Method for the Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliforms and Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) in Drinking Water (Veolia 2014a). Tecta EC/TC is a microbiological method for the simultaneous detection of total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water by broth enrichment of samples. Total coliforms and E. coli are detected as being present or absent in 100 mL samples of drinking water by enzymatic cleavage of fluorogenic substances with the formation of fluorescent compounds after incubation. Approved drinking water methods for total coliforms are listed at 40 CFR 141.21(f)(3) under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and at 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5) under the Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). Methods approved for E. coli in drinking water are listed at 40 CFR 141.21(f)(6) under the TCR, at 40 CFR 141.402(c)(2) under the Ground Water Rule (GWR), and at 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5) under the RTCR. Tecta EC/TC is similar to other approved drinking water methods except that it uses hydrophobic fluorogens for total coliforms and E. coli which adhere to a hydrophobic plastic stub. These fluorogens emit fluorescent light into the interior of the stub when illuminated by ultraviolet light. The fluorescence from the fluorogens is detected by a photometer adjacent to the stub. The incubation temperature maintenance, incubation timing, and fluorescence detection and results recording are all performed by an automated instrument. Tecta EC/TC is able to detect total coliforms and E. coli in 18 hours. Reagents and sample incubation containers are available, which can be used with the Tecta EC/TC incubator/detector. An Alternative Test Procedure (ATP) study was conducted to compare the method performance of Tecta EC/TC to the performance of the approved methods Standard Methods 9221 B (LTB/BGLB for total coliforms) and 9221 F (LTB/EC-MUG for E. coli ) (APHA 1998). The comparison study involved analyses of 200 drinking water samples—20 replicate samples that were inoculated with very low densities of chlorine-stressed total coliforms or E. coli obtained from 10 geographically dispersed waste waters. Method specificity was evaluated using approximately 100 positive and 100 negative cultures as determined from analyses by the reference methods. The ATP validation study report (Veolia 2014b) details the study design and method data evaluation. EPA has determined that Tecta EC/TC is equally effective relative to the approved Standard Method 9221 B for total coliforms under the TCR and RTCR, and Standard Method 9221 F for E. coli under the TCR, GWR, and RTCR. The basis for this determination is discussed in Sinclair (2014). Therefore, EPA is approving the Tecta EC/TC method for determining total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water. Tecta EC/TC is an automated and self-contained method, but is subject to the requirements for certified laboratories described in CFR 141.28.

A copy of the Tecta EC/TC method is available from Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies, Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6.

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

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