DOE published new and amended test procedures for residential clothes washers on March 7, 2012. 77 FR 13888. The current test procedure is codified at appendix J1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B. The March 2012 final rule amended certain provisions in appendix J1, established new clothes washer test procedures codified in a new appendix J2 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, and amended the procedures for calculating the annual operating cost in 10 CFR 430.23(j). Residential clothes washer manufacturers may continue to use appendix J1 to determine compliance of their products with energy conservation standards until the compliance date of any amended standards.

In the preamble to the March 2012 final rule, DOE described its intention to amend the annual operating cost calculation in 10 CFR 430.23(j) to incorporate the cost of energy consumed in standby and off modes, and to reflect an updated number of annual use cycles, for clothes washers tested using the new appendix J2. DOE intended to maintain the annual operating cost calculation for clothes washers tested using the currently effective appendix J1, which applies to residential clothes washers currently on the market. In the March 2012 final rule, DOE erroneously referenced appendix J2 in the provisions at newly designated 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), which are intended to apply to clothes washers tested using appendix J1. The remainder of the text in paragraph (i) correctly refers to appendix J1. The provisions for calculating the annual operating cost of clothes washers tested using appendix J2 are found at the newly created 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii).

This final rule amends 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) to reference appendix J1 rather than appendix J2. This correction also applies to the parenthetical note in 430.23(j)(1)(i), which should reference the introductory note in appendix J1 rather than appendix J2.

For clarity and consistency between 430.23(j)(1)(i) and 430.23(j)(1)(ii), this final rule also amends 430.23(j)(1)(ii) to include a parenthetical note, analogous to the parenthetical note in 430.23(j)(1)(i), referencing the introductory note in appendix J2.

The regulatory reviews conducted for this rulemaking are those set forth in the March 2012 final rule that originally codified amendments to DOE's test procedures for residential clothes washers. The amendments in the March 2012 final rule became effective April 6, 2012.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), DOE has determined that notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The provisions in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) are intended to apply to residential clothes washers currently on the market, as indicated by the remaining text of paragraph (i) that follows the erroneous reference to appendix J2. In addition, this correction is needed to ensure clarity regarding the annual energy cost calculated according to 430.23(j)(1)(i), which is required to be displayed on the Federal Trade Commission's current EnergyGuide Label for residential clothes washers as the primary indicator of product energy efficiency. (16 CFR 305.5(a)(6); 305.11(f)(5); (f)(8)) For these reasons, DOE has also determined that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

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 December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81894), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR 30284, June 1, 2010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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 19, 2011 (76 FR 64851). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program to include new or more restrictive life-limits and inspections.

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

Flight Concepts requested we revisit our interpretation of the word “current” so that the improper use of the airworthiness directive system would not be needed. This commenter justified its request by providing Webster's definition of the word “current.”

We infer that the requested change is in reference to an FAA memorandum regarding the legal interpretation of section 91.409(f)(3) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.409) and is not specifically applicable to this AD.

We do not agree that the word “current” needs to be defined for this AD. The utilization of the word “current” is not within the textual body of this AD. This AD requires revising the maintenance program by incorporating certain tasks, which when performed, address unsafe conditions. Operators utilizing earlier versions of manual-specific maintenance programs may not be bound or obligated to follow newer releases or updates to these maintenance programs. The issue of the terminology of the word “current” and explanation of the requirement for FAA mandates to newer maintenance actions via the AD process is addressed in an FAA memorandum dated August 13, 2010, from the Office of the Chief Counsel. This AD ensures that those specific tasks covering the unsafe conditions are followed by all operators of this airplane model. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We have redesignated Note 1 of the NPRM (76 FR 64851, October 19, 2011) as paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and Note 2 of the NPRM as Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

IRN # N3220105 was incorrectly included in table 1 of the NPRM (76 FR 64851, October 19, 2011). We have removed it from the final rule.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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 (76 FR 64851, October 19, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 64851, October 19, 2011).

We estimate that this AD affects 336 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69155). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

Bombardier requested that we revise the proposed applicability to remove Model CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R airplanes.

We agree. We have removed these models from the Summary and paragraph (c) of this AD, since only the Model CL-604 variant is affected.

The Costs of Compliance section has been updated to show a more accurate cost to operators. The work-hours quoted in Bombardier Service Bulletins 604-24-023 and 605-24-003, dated April 27, 2011, include only the labor time required for replacement, while Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10G-24-1, dated February 9, 2011, estimates 4 work-hours for replacing the printed wiring assemblies in the GCU and functional testing of the ADG. Because it may be necessary to do a non-destructive test (NDT) inspection on some airplanes, we have added an additional work-hour, for a total estimate of 6 work-hours.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 70 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $35,700, or $510 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 69155, November 8, 2011), 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

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 November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74010). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting the electrical leads routed to the fire extinguishing containers for proper identification and missing labels, and to ensure the electrical leads are connected to the correct squibs; and corrective actions if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal (76 FR 74010, November 30, 2011) and the FAA's response.

The single commenter, SpiritJets, LLC, stated that the wording of the compliance time in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 74010, November 30, 2011) appears to be inaccurate because many of those airplanes do not have auxiliary power units (APU) installed. The compliance time in the NPRM is worded as follows: “Within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, or at the next auxiliary power unit (APU) removal, whichever occurs first * * *”

We infer that the commenter requests we remove the reference to the next APU removal from the compliance time. We find that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (g) of this AD applies to all airplanes identified in the applicability (i.e., paragraph (c) of this AD). Therefore, if an APU is not installed on an airplane that is identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, “within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD” is the appropriate compliance time for accomplishing the requirements of the AD on that airplane. For clarification purposes, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to add paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), which more clearly specify the compliance times for airplanes with and without an APU.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 74010, November 30, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 74010, November 30, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 232 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3189). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 3189, January 23, 2012), or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 81 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,885 or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 3189, January 23, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66203). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

Bombardier, Inc. requested the applicability be revised to remove the CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variant airplanes, since only the CL-604 Variant is affected.

We agree because only the CL-604 Variant is affected. We have changed the preamble and paragraph (c) of this final rule to specify only the CL-604 Variant.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes to the paragraph identifier format. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 69 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $347 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $59,133, or $857 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 66203, October 26, 2011), 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

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 June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38072). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks of the WCS spanwise beams, and repair if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 777-57A0087 IN 01, dated March 24, 2011. AAL stated that this IN addresses information that is critical to the correct design and installation of repairs. If this IN is not incorporated, AAL asserted that the repairs could be designed and installed improperly.

Boeing and Continental Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011. They stated that without incorporating the latest issue of this service bulletin, the repairs provided in the original issue of this service bulletin could be installed improperly because the original issue of this service bulletin contains minor deficiencies.

Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011), Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, which incorporates the changes outlined in Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 777-57A0087 IN 01, dated March 24, 2011. Therefore, we agree to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, not the earlier Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 777-57A0087 IN 01, dated March 24, 2011.

Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, was revised to, among other things, clarify and provide additional repair information. We have changed paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011. We have also added new paragraph (i) to this AD to give credit to operators for actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, dated November 11, 2010, since accomplishment of that service bulletin adequately addresses the unsafe condition. We have re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

FedEx requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) to refer to a detailed visual inspection, rather than a detailed inspection. The Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, calls out a “detailed inspection.” FedEx indicated that, while it is clear that the inspection is meant to be a visual inspection, the term “visual” is not used anywhere in the definition in either Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0087, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, or in the NPRM.

We disagree. The term “intensive” in the definition of a detailed inspection indicates that the inspection demands a higher level of scrutiny than using only visual means to find unsatisfactory conditions that are more difficult to detect. The mention of “elaborate procedures” used in the definition of a detailed inspection raises the awareness that extraordinary means of gaining access by removing adjacent items, de-fueling tanks, etc., are necessary to perform the inspection, and hence, the inspection cannot be performed by visual means only. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

FedEx suggested that the FAA provide Boeing with AMOC authoring authority for the proposed rule NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis.

We agree to clarify. Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received an Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), which provides Boeing with AMOC authoring authority. We included paragraph (j)(3) in the NPRM to reflect Boeing's authorization. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this issue.

We have revised the wording of paragraph (i) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent of that paragraph.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 38072, June 29, 2011).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

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 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.

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 November 4, 2011 (76 FR 68366). That NPRM proposed to require replacing certain single-tabbed bonding brackets in the airplane empennage with two-tabbed bonding brackets. That NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installing new bonding jumpers, and measuring the resistance of the modified installation to verify resistance is within specified limits.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 68366, November 4, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Boeing Company and United Airlines both support the NPRM (76 FR 68366, November 4, 2011).

American Airlines (AA) requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 68366, November 4, 2011) to exclude the requirement that states “Put the airplane back to a serviceable condition,” which is found in paragraph 3.B.7. of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-55A0014, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2010. AA explained that this requirement does not affect the condition which the proposed AD seeks to address. AA reasoned that, as most operators will accomplish the modifications required by the service information as part of a maintenance visit, returning the airplane to a serviceable condition will not be possible in the context of that statement, but will rather occur at a point in time well after the work is complete.

We disagree to exclude the requirement that states “Put the airplane back to a serviceable condition” in this final rule. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that all work that is performed as directed by the service information is verified to have been completed, and to ensure that modifications have been tested and are fully operational, prior to return to service. We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding which actions in a service bulletin are necessary to be required in an AD in order to address the identified unsafe condition. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We have revised the heading for and the wording in paragraph (i) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent of that paragraph.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD 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 (76 FR 68366, November 4, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 68366, November 4, 2011).

We estimate that this AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

On October 20, 2011, we issued AD 2011-23-06, Amendment 39-16857 (76 FR 68304, November 4, 2011). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Sicma Aero Seat Model 9401, 9402, 9404, 9505, 9406, 9407, 9408, and 9409 series passenger seat assemblies, installed on, but not limited to, ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2011-23-06, Amendment 39-16857 (76 FR 68304, November 4, 2011), we have determined that the applicability of that AD included Model 9505 series passenger seat assemblies in the applicability instead of Model 9405 series passenger seat assemblies. We have revised the applicability of this AD accordingly and added new paragraph (h) for Sicma Aero Seat Model 9405 series passenger seat assemblies.

Since we issued AD 2011-23-06, Amendment 39-16857 (76 FR 68304, November 4, 2011), the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table:

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

There are no products of this type currently registered in the United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0334; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69157). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested the compliance time of “24 months after the effective date of the AD” be reduced because ALPA believes that the compliance time is too long to comply with the proposed AD (76 FR 69157, November 8, 2011) based on the importance of replacement.

We do not agree to shorten the compliance time. In developing the compliance time, we determined that the compliance time of 24 months is appropriate in considering the safety implications, the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly inspection of the fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required replacement parts. In addition, our compliance time corresponds with the 24-month compliance time of the parallel AD issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA). We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Comair, Inc. requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 69157, November 8, 2011) to reference Hamilton Sundstrand's part number, in addition to the Bombardier part numbers for the ADG GCU, because by doing so, Comair believes the AD will make certain all suspect ADG GCUs are removed and replaced and will be congruent with the manufacturer's manual.

We agree with the request to reference Hamilton Sundstrand's part number for the ADG GCU that is affected, and not higher assembly part numbers. Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-130, dated April 27, 2011, refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10G-24-1, dated February 9, 2011, as an additional source of guidance for modifying and testing the ADG GCU with new printed wiring assemblies and re-identifying the GCU with a new part number. We have updated paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to include the Hamilton Sundstrand part number.

Air Wisconsin requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM (76 FR 69157, November 8, 2011) to show a more accurate cost to operators of 7 hours labor. While the task of replacing the ADG CGU requires 2 hours of labor, the commenter states that post-modification testing requires an additional 5 work-hours.

We partially agree. The work-hours quoted in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-130, dated April 28, 2011, include only the labor time required for replacement, while the Hamilton Sundstrand service information estimates 4 work-hours for replacement of the printed wiring assemblies from the GCU and functional testing of the ADG. Because it may be necessary to do a non-destructive test (NDT) inspection on some airplanes, we have added an additional work-hour. We have changed the labor time required to 6 work-hours in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD.

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects 589 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $300,390, or $510 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 69157, November 8, 2011), 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:

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 November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69166). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested the compliance time of “10,000 flight hours or 60 months after the effective date of the AD” be reduced, because ALPA believes that the compliance time is too long to comply with the proposed AD (76 FR 69166, November 8, 2011) based on the importance of replacement.

We do not agree to shorten the compliance time. In developing the compliance time, we determined that the compliance time of 10,000 flight hours or 60 months after the effective date of the AD (whichever is first), is appropriate when considering the safety implications, the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly inspection of the fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required replacement parts. In addition, our compliance time corresponds with the 10,000-flight-hour or 60-month compliance time of the parallel AD issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA). We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Comair, Inc. requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 69166, November 8, 2011) to reference Hamilton Sundstrand's part number, in addition to the Bombardier part numbers for the ADG GCU, because by doing so, Comair believes the proposed AD will make certain all suspect ADG GCUs are removed and replaced and will be congruent with the manufacturer's manual.

We agree with the request to reference the Hamilton Sundstrand part number for the ADG GCU unit that is affected and not higher assembly part numbers. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-031, dated May 30, 2011, refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10G-24-1, dated February 9, 2011, as an additional source of guidance for modifying and testing the ADG GCU with new printed wiring assemblies and re-identifying the GCU with a new part number. We have updated paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to include the Hamilton Sundstrand part number.

The Costs of Compliance section in this AD has been updated to show a more accurate cost to operators. The work-hours quoted in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-031, dated May 30, 2011, include only the labor time required for replacement, while Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10G-24-1, dated February 9, 2011, estimates 4 work-hours for replacement of the printed wiring assemblies from the GCU and functional testing of the ADG. Because it may be necessary to do a non-destructive test (NDT) inspection on some airplanes, we have added an additional work-hour, resulting in a total labor time estimate of 6 work-hours in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD.

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects 402 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $205,020, or $510 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 69166, November 8, 2011), 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

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 November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69168). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. FedEx commented on the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011), and noted the compliance thresholds fit within their scheduled maintenance checks.

We revised paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD to refer to paragraph (g) of this AD for the installation. We had inadvertently referred to paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011) for the installation.

Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011), we have reviewed the following new service information:

• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 03, dated January 18, 2012 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes).

• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 03, dated January 26, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 03, dated January 23, 2012 (for Airbus Model A310 series airplanes).

We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to the revised service information, revised paragraph (j) of this AD to give credit for earlier revisions of the service bulletin, and re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011).

We estimate that this AD will affect 215 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 38 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $4,590 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,681,300, or $7,820 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 69168, November 8, 2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

This 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:

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:

On January 6, 2012, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 15 CFR parts 801, 806, and 807 to set forth general guidelines for reporting on international trade in services and direct investment surveys provided for by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 to 3108, (the Act)), 77 FR 772. For surveys that are conducted on an ongoing basis—quarterly, annually, quinqenially—BEA proposed to issue specific reporting information regarding individual surveys through notices rather than through notice and comment rulemaking.

This rule implements the proposed rule. Under this rule, notices of specific surveys pertaining to international investment and trade in services and direct investment, including applicable report forms and instructions, will be separately published in the Federal Register . Only respondents notified of these surveys are required to respond to BEA surveys.

BEA received no comments on the proposed rule, and adopts the proposed rule without change. Accordingly, now surveys on international trade in services and on direct investment will be issued by a notice in the Federal Register , and will also be sent to individual respondents. Entities that do not receive a notice of the survey from BEA are not required to complete the survey.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule affects only BEA's internal procedures regarding how it conducts surveys of international trade in services and direct investment. None of the changes will have a direct effect on any businesses, large or small. Those subject to these surveys will still be required to respond to BEA's requests for information, but the requests themselves will not be subject to notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, the effect of this final rule is to simplify and generalize existing regulations governing the procurement of information on the international trade in services and direct investment under the Act. Because there will be no impact to small entities as a result of this change to the regulations, the Chief Counsel certified that this final rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule contains no information collection requests as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3501-3521). However, as necessary the individual notices of surveys will include a description of the paperwork burden associated with completing the survey, and provide the control number from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for any survey issued pursuant to this rule. No one is required to answer any request by the government for information that does not contain an approved OMB control number.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter VIII is amended as follows:

Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. If appropriate to a specific comment, the commenter should reference the specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.

CBP is responsible for border enforcement of intellectual property rights laws and regulations. One of the primary purposes of CBP's efforts to interdict counterfeit imported goods is to protect the public from unsafe and substandard products, which, in some cases, can be a threat to public health and safety, and also a threat to the national security. In particular, counterfeit integrated circuits and electronic components can find their way into critical manufacturing, military, infrastructure, and consumer product applications. In fact, inquiries conducted by Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) have revealed that counterfeit electronic components, including counterfeit integrated circuits, have entered military and government supply chains, posing a serious threat to our military and government personnel and infrastructure.

Due to the development of sophisticated techniques of some counterfeiters and the highly technical nature of some imported goods, it has become increasingly difficult for CBP to determine whether some goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks in fact bear counterfeit marks. The current regulation pertaining to goods bearing counterfeit marks does not provide a procedure for disclosing information to right holders to assist CBP in its efforts to identify goods bearing infringing marks, prior to CBP's making a determination to seize.

In this document, CBP is making several changes to subpart C of part 133 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR part 133) regarding the detention of suspect merchandise and the disclosure of information to right holders during detention of goods bearing potentially counterfeit marks and after seizure of goods bearing counterfeit marks. These changes, made on an interim basis and effective on the date of their publication in the Federal Register , include a clarifying revision of the current regulation's definition of “counterfeit trademark” and an addition of a 30-day detention period relative to goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. These changes will enhance CBP's enforcement capability against increasingly sophisticated counterfeit products that threaten the public health and safety and national security.

The Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) bars the unauthorized disclosure by government officials of any information received in the course of their employment or official duties when such information (also referred to collectively as “protected information”) “concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association.” Case law interpreting the statute states that the Act “appears to cover practically any commercial or financial data collected by any Federal employee from any source” and that the “comprehensive catalogue of items” listed in the Act “accomplishes essentially the same thing as if it had simply referred to ‘all officially collected commercial information' or ‘all business and financial data received.' ” See CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Specifically, the Trade Secrets Act protects those required to furnish commercial or financial information to the government by shielding them from the competitive disadvantage that could result from disclosure of that information by the government. In turn, this protection encourages those providing information to the government to furnish accurate and reliable information that is useful to the government.

The protection afforded by the Trade Secrets Act, however, must be balanced against the important and legitimate interests of government. The Trade Secrets Act permits those covered by the Act to disclose confidential information when the disclosure is otherwise “authorized by law,” which includes both statutes expressly authorizing disclosure and properly promulgated substantive agency regulations authorizing disclosure based on a valid statutory interpretation. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 294-316 (1979).

Section 818(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 112-81) provides:

The NDAA enhances CBP's capability to enforce laws protecting marks by authorizing the agency to disclose certain information to right holders to assist CBP officers in determining whether suspect merchandise bears counterfeit marks.

Under the NDAA, CBP is authorized by law to make certain disclosures. One reading of the language of the NDAA, however, is that disclosure is limited to trademarks and does not include other marks noted under the Lanham Act (certification, collective, and service marks). Moreover, some have suggested that the legislative history of the Act indicates that certain legislators intended that the exception to the Trade Secrets Act created by the NDAA is to apply only to military sales.

Consequently, CBP, in publishing this interim rule, is exercising regulatory authority to remove any ambiguity about CBP's authority to disclose information with regard to certification, collective, and service marks, as well as trademarks, and to further clarify that the disclosure authority extends to all imports and not just those associated with military sales.

As noted above, the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) has authority to disclose information otherwise protected under the Trade Secrets Act when such disclosures are authorized by law. Disclosures meeting the “authorized by law” standard of the Trade Secrets Act include those made under regulations that are (1) in compliance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) and (2) based on a valid statute. Regarding CBP's statutory authority to disclose certain importation information to right holders, various provisions in titles 15 and 19 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) authorize CBP to promulgate regulations to enforce prohibitions against the importation of merchandise that infringes intellectual property rights.

Section 42 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1124) prohibits the importation of merchandise bearing a mark which copies or simulates a registered mark. In order to aid CBP in enforcing this prohibition, section 42 provides for the recordation of registered marks under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe. Sections 526(e) and 595a(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1526(e), and 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)), prohibit the importation of merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark and the introduction or attempted introduction into the United States of merchandise or packaging in which, inter alia, trademark or trade name protection violations are involved, including, but not limited to violations of sections 1124, 1125 and 1127 of Title 15 (sections 42, 32 and 45 of the Lanham Act). Moreover, section 526(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1526(e)) requires CBP to notify the owner of the trademark when merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark within the meaning of section 1127 of Title 15 and imported in violation of section 1124 of Title 15 is seized. Section 624 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1624), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Collectively, these statutes authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, in instances where identification of suspected violative merchandise requires the assistance of right holders for the specific and limited purpose of determining whether imported merchandise bears a counterfeit mark, to provide for the disclosure of certain information to right holders upon importation.

The interim rule is intended to support the statutory enforcement scheme discussed above and to allow CBP officers, without violating the Trade Secrets Act, to disclose information that might reveal otherwise confidential commercial or financial information in order to assist CBP in identifying merchandise bearing counterfeit marks at the time of detention.

In addition, CBP is putting in place a procedure that provides the importer the opportunity to demonstrate to CBP, within seven (7) days (exclusive of weekends and holidays) of a notice of detention, that the article in question does not bear a counterfeit mark, before releasing information to the right holder. Only absent such a demonstration by the importer will information, images, or samples be shared with the right holder. This procedural safeguard is intended to achieve the policy goals of the NDAA in a manner consistent with maintaining the flow of information to the government, fostering competition, keeping prices low, and maintaining consumer choice.

Information that is covered by the Trade Secrets Act and obtained from an importer, including the importer's name and place of business, manufacturer's identity, supply chain, and other confidential commercial or financial information, if disclosed, could provide insights into the importer's business operations, processes, style of work, and income, all inuring to the importer's competitive disadvantage. For example, product coding, such as serial numbers, and SKUs often incorporates information about where and when a product was manufactured, as well as other information that could allow one to identify information about the manufacture of the product. It is likewise possible that such information could directly or indirectly reveal the identity of wholesalers, exporters, or other parties in the importer's supply chain and the timing and pricing of the transactions involving those entities. Such confidential commercial or financial information, if not properly protected, could be used by competitors to an importer's economic disadvantage, potentially resulting in reduced competition and consumer choice with attendant increases in prices.

This document is amending the CBP regulations to allow CBP to provide right holders, for the limited purpose of assisting CBP in making infringement determinations, with any information appearing on merchandise and/or its retail packaging, or a sample of the merchandise including its retail packaging, when CBP reasonably suspects that such merchandise and/or packaging may bear a counterfeit mark (see § 133.21(b)(1) of this rule). This disclosure of information, which includes images (photographs) or samples, as appropriate, could potentially disclose confidential commercial or financial information otherwise protected under the Trade Secrets Act. The interim regulation also includes a procedure that allows an importer, prior to release of the information, the opportunity to establish, within seven (7) days (excluding weekends and holidays) of a notice of detention, that the marks are not counterfeit. Only absent such a demonstration by the importer will the disclosure be made to the right holder.

In conjunction with the interim rule's procedure outlined above, CBP is adding to the regulation a 30-day period (and an extension, if requested by the importer for good cause) to commence upon presentation of the goods for examination, within which a determination with respect to admissibility will be made (see § 133.21(b) of this rule). Under the interim regulation, CBP will issue the notice of detention within five days of its detention decision, starting the seven-day period within which the importer may demonstrate that the goods do not bear a counterfeit mark. Only if such demonstration is untimely or insufficient will CBP release information to the right holder.

In brief summation, this change to the regulations concerning counterfeit marks, in principal part, allows CBP, prior to seizure, to release to right holders information appearing on goods (and/or their retail packaging), and on images and samples, that are not redacted, i.e., images showing the merchandise (and/or its retail packaging) in its condition as presented for examination and samples (and/or its retail packaging) in their condition as so presented. This allows the right holder to assist CBP in its enforcement effort to prevent the entry of goods bearing counterfeit marks. However, in certain circumstances, DHS criminal investigators may provide right holders such information or samples without notifying the importer, for example to obtain from the right holder evidence that will assist the investigators in demonstrating probable cause when they seek a judicial order in the course of a criminal or national security investigation.

As mentioned previously, CBP is also making a clarifying amendment to the definition of “counterfeit trademark.” The amended definition of “counterfeit mark” uses the term “mark” instead of “trademark” (see § 133.21(a) of this rule).

In addition, CBP is amending the regulations pertaining to goods bearing copying or simulating marks and restricted gray market goods to correct an inconsistency in the regulatory scheme for such goods (19 CFR 133.22(f) and 133.23(f), respectively). The 30-day detention period for these goods is set forth in § 133.25 of the CBP regulations, and this procedure provides for extension of the detention period applicable to these goods upon good cause shown. Therefore, CBP is removing from §§ 133.22(f) and 133.23(f) inconsistent language that appears to restrict the respective detention periods to only 30 days.

Lastly, CBP is amending the provisions of 19 CFR 151.16(a) regarding detention of merchandise to make them consistent with the interim regulations in this rulemaking. The regulations pertaining to detention of merchandise exclude from their applicability imported articles suspected of being infringing copies or phonorecords, imported goods bearing marks which are confusingly similar to recorded trademarks, and imported restricted gray market merchandise. The interim amendment to section 151.16(a) excludes imports of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks from the applicability of the regulations pertaining to detention of merchandise.

As explained previously in this document ( see “Purpose of the Interim Amendments” subsection in the Background section), CBP is responsible for enforcement of intellectual property rights laws and regulations at the border. An important goal of CBP efforts to interdict counterfeit imported goods is to protect the public from unsafe and substandard counterfeit products. In addition, counterfeit goods present a threat to national security and our critical infrastructure. Counterfeit integrated circuits and electronic components can be used in critical manufacturing, military, infrastructure, and consumer product applications. Inquiries conducted by Congress and the DoD have revealed that counterfeit electronic components, including counterfeit integrated circuits, have entered military and government supply chains, posing a serious threat to our military and government personnel and infrastructure. Moreover, interdiction of counterfeit goods has been made increasingly difficult due to the development of sophisticated techniques used by some counterfeiters and the highly technical nature of some imported goods.

Because this rule addresses an immediate need to address without delay vulnerabilities in our military and government procurement processes, as well as an immediate need to interdict goods bearing counterfeit marks that pose health and safety risks to the American public, CBP has determined that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. Therefore, CBP has determined that in accordance with the sections 553(b)(B) and 553(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 553), good cause exists to dispense with the prior comment requirement and delayed effective date requirement. Subsection 818(g) of the NDAA was effective upon enactment, but the authority it provides the Secretary is discretionary and not mandatory. Accordingly, although some may interpret the statute to allow the Secretary to exercise his discretionary authority without amending CBP's existing regulations, CBP believes that amending the existing, more restrictive regulations is consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and will eliminate any legal ambiguity. The interim regulations also promote transparency and provide an important opportunity to gather feedback and input from stakeholders regarding implementation of § 818(g) of the NDAA.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA for the reasons described in the Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date Requirements section of this document, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply to this rulemaking. Accordingly, this interim rule is not subject to the regulatory analysis or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

This rulemaking is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his or her delegate) to approve regulations concerning trademark enforcement.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the collections of information for this document are included in an existing collection for Notices of Detention (OMB control number 1651-0073). An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The burden hours related to the Notices of Detention for OMB control number 1651-0073 are as follows:

Number of Respondents: 1,350.

Number of Responses: 1,350.

Time per Response: 2 hours.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,700.

There is no change in burden hours under this collection with this rule.

For the reasons stated above in the preamble, CBP is amending parts 133 and 151 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 133 and 151) to read as follows:

Background

On February 11, 2009, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury (the Treasury Department) published temporary and proposed regulations in the Federal Register (REG-147636-08, 74 FR 6824; TD 9444, 2009-1 CB 603) (the temporary or proposed regulations, as applicable, and collectively, the 2009 regulations). The 2009 regulations, in part, provide that for purposes of section 1248(a), gain recognized under section 301(c)(3) in connection with the receipt of a distribution of property from a foreign corporation with respect to its stock shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of the stock of such foreign corporation (2009 section 1248 regulations).

The 2009 regulations also addressed the application of section 367 to certain related party stock transactions that are recharacterized under section 304. As described in Notice 2012-15 (2012-9 IRB 495 (February 27, 2012)) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter), the IRS and the Treasury Department intend to amend the regulations under section 367 to provide that the section 351 exchange that is deemed to occur in a section 304 transaction is subject to section 367(a) and (b), as applicable. Accordingly, this Treasury decision does not finalize the portions of the 2009 regulations that address the interaction of sections 304 and 367. Those portions of the 2009 regulations will be withdrawn in separate published guidance (REG-104400-12).

No public hearing on the 2009 section 1248 regulations was requested or held and no written comments were received. This Treasury decision adopts the 2009 section 1248 regulations, with one modification to remove a deadwood provision, as final regulations under section 1248(a). This Treasury decision also removes the temporary regulations under section 1248(a).

The final regulations provide that gain recognized under section 301(c)(3) on the receipt of a distribution of property from a foreign corporation with respect to its stock shall be treated for purposes of section 1248(a) as gain from the sale or exchange of the stock of such corporation. For purposes of section 1248(a), a sale or exchange also includes a distribution that gives rise to gain with respect to stock under section 302(a) or 331(a). The final regulations ensure that the earnings and profits of lower-tier foreign subsidiaries described in section 1248(c)(2) are taken into account when gain is recognized with respect to stock of a controlled foreign corporation.

The 2009 section 1248 regulations incorporated a provision from the prior final regulations under section 1248 providing that section 1248(a) applies to gain recognized with respect to stock under section 331(a)(2) by reason of a partial liquidation of a corporation. The final regulations remove the reference to partial liquidations under section 331(a)(2) in order to reflect amendments made in 1982 by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324 (1982)), which repealed section 331(a)(2) and provided new rules regarding redemptions in partial liquidation under section 302. See section 302(b)(4) and (e).

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d) do not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations primarily will affect large domestic corporations. Thus, the number of affected small entities will not be substantial. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Ryan A. Bowen of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

On January 13, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 2019), a temporary interim rule that established a temporary security zone for Kaunakakai Harbor, including the entrance channel and offshore area adjacent to the channel's entrance during the arrival and departure of the Passenger Vessel Safari Explorer in Kaunakakai Harbor, Molokai, Hawaii. Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before February 3, 2012. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. 2011-1159. This action will allow interested persons additional time to review and submit comments on the synopsis of comments that the Coast Guard prepared based on the comments received during public meetings. We will consider comments received on or before May 7, 2012.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone, setting the standard at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour timeframe. This revised standard was established based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time, than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was promulgated (62 FR 38855). 1

On April 30, 2004, EPA published designations and classifications for the revised 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23858). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. North Carolina was required to develop nonattainment SIP revisions addressing the CAA requirements for its nonattainment areas. Among other things, North Carolina was required to address the emissions statements requirement pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, requires states with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS (under subpart 2 of the Act) to submit a SIP revision to require emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources within that nonattainment area. Specifically, CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) reads:

In a March 14, 2006, 2 memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director Air Quality Assessment Division to EPA Regional Air Division Directors (Curran Memo), EPA clarified that the emissions statements requirement under the CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), is applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified marginal or higher under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Consistent with EPA's interpretation of the submission period for other subpart 2 obligations, the Curran Memo states that the 2-year submission period for the emissions statements rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will run from the date an area was designated nonattainment and classified under subpart 2 for the 8-hour standard. Thus, states were required to submit their emissions statements rule by June 15, 2006, and the rule is required to provide that sources submit their first emissions statements to the state by no later than June 15, 2007 (for the 2006 calendar year). The Curran Memo further states that if an area has a previously approved emissions statements rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statements requirement for the 1997 8-hour standard.

North Carolina's annual emissions reporting requirement was approved into the SIP on August 1, 1997. See 64 FR 41277. The counties included in the August 1, 1997, approval included Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, and Wake County, the Dutchville Township in Granville County, and that part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to the Yadkin River. On January 31, 2008, North Carolina submitted additional counties to be included in the annual emissions reporting requirements to be consistent with the requirements of the CAA as a result of EPA's designation boundary for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In today's action, EPA is approving the addition of Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties in their entireties and Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County to the annual emissions reporting portion of the SIP revision submitted by the State of North Carolina on January 31, 2008, as required by section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA will take action on the remaining portions of North Carolina's January 31, 2008, SIP revision in a separate action. 3

North Carolina's SIP revision updates its regulation at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02Q .0207, to include Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties in their entireties and Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County and requires all owners or operators of stationary sources located in these areas with actual emissions of 25 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides, to submit a statement of actual emissions by June 30th of each year. EPA has evaluated North Carolina's January 31, 2008, SIP revision as it relates to the emissions statements and has made the determination that it meets the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).

EPA is taking direct final action to approve a portion of a SIP revision, submitted on January 31, 2008, by the State of North Carolina, through the NCDAQ, to meet the emissions statements requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 and section 182 of the CAA.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on June 25, 2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by May 24, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised this rule will be effective on June 25, 2012 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 final action:

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

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

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

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

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

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

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

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

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 June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On November 29, 2011, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maine. See 76 FR 73956. The NPR proposed approval of the Maine State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. It was submitted by the Maine DEP on December 9, 2010, with supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. Specifically, EPA proposed to approve Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision, and its supplements, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to approve Maine's Best Achievable Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for several sources and to incorporate the license conditions that implement those determinations into the SIP. In addition, EPA proposed to approve Maine's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A), and to incorporate this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is also proposed to approve the following Maine state regulation and incorporate it into the SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.

A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs, as well as EPA's analysis of Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal was provided in the NPR and is not restated here.

EPA received a number of comments on our proposal to approve Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from the citizen's group Credo Action and the National Park Service (NPS). A joint letter from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), and the Natural Resources Council of Maine (collectively “NPCA”) was also submitted. Many of the NPCA comments echoed comments submitted by NPS. The U.S Forest Service reiterated previous comments submitted on Maine's proposed rulemaking and acknowledge the work that the State of Maine has accomplished and encouraged the State of Maine to continue to reduce regional haze. The following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant comments received on EPA's proposed approval of Maine's Regional Haze SIP.

Comment: NPCA commented that in light of the $/ton limits accepted by other States (e.g., $7,300/ton in Oregon, $5,000/ton in Colorado, and $7,000-$10,000/ton in Wisconsin), Maine lacks a State cost effectiveness threshold in its Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations. 1

Response: While States have the option to develop a cost effectiveness threshold, the Regional Haze Rule does not require States to set a bright line threshold for cost effectiveness. Pursuant to Section 51.308(e)(A), the State is required to consider five factors when determining the appropriate level of BART control: The cost of compliance; the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts; any pollution control equipment in use at the source; the remaining useful life of the source; and the degree of improvement which may be reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology. Even though the cited States adopted a dollar per ton threshold, controls with costs below the established cost threshold were sometimes rejected when considered in conjunction with the other factors. In Oregon, only one BART-eligible source was subject to BART: The PGE Boardman coal-fired EGU. Although the technology option of new Low NO X Burners with modified over-fire air (NLNB/MOFA) plus selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) could be considered cost effective ($1,816/ton) for the PGE Boardman, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rejected this technology option because adding SNCR only provided an additional 0.18 deciview (dv) of visibility improvement over NLNB/MOFA at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area and because ODEQ was concerned with the potential for excess ammonia emissions from the SNCR (commonly referred to as ammonia slip) which could result in increased rates of secondary particulate matter (ammonium sulfate). In addition, ODEQ rejected Semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) at a cost of $5,535/ton SO 2 removed ($7,200/ton incremental cost) in favor for Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) at $3,370/ton SO 2 removed. See 76 FR 12651. The State of Colorado also rejected BART controls with a cost of control less than $5,000/ton (e.g., DSI at a cost of $2,482/ton SO 2 removed) due to minimal expected visibility improvement. In the case of Wisconsin, the State only has one non-EGU subject to BART. The BART level of control selected by the State for this source is $1,580/ton SO 2 removed and $1,868/ton NO X removed with a combined visibility improvement of 2.68 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area and 5.03 dv visibility improvement across all four Class I Areas impacted by this BART source. See 77 FR 11928 (February 28, 2012). In addition, all three of the States cited by NPCA applied a 0.5 dv minimum visibility impact threshold for determining what BART-eligible sources would be subject to BART. Maine instead decided that all BART-eligible sources, regardless of their impact on Class I Areas, would be subject to BART. Therefore, the cost effectiveness thresholds cited by NPCA are not comparable to Maine's determinations. The Regional Haze Rule does not require States to use a set threshold in evaluating cost effectiveness and the lack of a cost effectiveness threshold does not render Maine's BART determinations unreasonable.

Comment: NPS commented that the analysis of lower sulfur fuel oil for Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 is incomplete, inaccurate, and does not follow BART Guidelines or the MANE-VU recommendations. NPS suggested that EPA should at least evaluate the lower sulfur residual oils for the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers.

Response: According to Appendix Y to Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines), “[F]or sources other than 750 MW power plants, however, States retain the discretion to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines.” See 70 FR 39156 (July 6, 2005). Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and paper plant and Maine's analysis is therefore not required to follow the BART Guidelines. Maine has flexibility in addressing the five factors of the BART analysis.

The MANE-VU recommended level of control for industrial boilers is the use of 0.5% sulfur in fuel #6 oil. Maine's BART limit for Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 requires the reduction from 1.8% sulfur in fuel oil to the use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil by January 1, 2013. The source will, however, be subject to the MANE-VU recommended 0.5% sulfur in fuel limit by no later than January 1, 2018, pursuant to Maine's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A)  2 which will become federally enforceable under today's action. Therefore these boilers will be required to meet the MANE-VU recommended level of control during the first planning period as part of the long term strategy.

Comment: NPS commented that in its analysis of the switching to natural gas, Verso Androscoggin assumed $9.43 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) which is more than double the current price. NPS claimed that EPA must reevaluate the costs of switching to natural gas using current cost information.

Response: The Verso Androscoggin analysis of switching to natural gas assumed $9.43/MCF based on 2009 data. The most recent data from U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates an increase in the 2010 annual industrial price of natural gas to $11.23/MCF  3 and monthly industrial prices are in the range of $8.61 to $12.08/MCF for the second half of 2011. 4 Therefore, the use of $9.43/MCF is acceptable.

Comment: NPS commented that Maine DEP improperly dismissed application of FGR (Flue Gas Recirculation) at Verso Androscoggin from further evaluation on the premise that it would result in minimal reductions in NO X emissions. NPS commented that FGR was determined to be technically feasible by Verso Androscoggin and must be fully evaluated if SNCR is not selected as BART.

Response: The State of Maine has flexibility as to how the factors of the BART analysis are weighed and is not required to conduct an analysis that conforms to the requirements of BART Guidelines because Verso Androscoggin is not a 750 MW power plant. The State determined that the installation of flue gas recirculation at Verso Androscoggin would require the enlargement of the burner openings in both boilers. When combined with the existing Low NO X burners, the FGR is only expected to result in a maximum of seven percent reduction in NO X emissions which would not be expected to provide substantial visibility improvement. 5 EPA finds that Maine reasonably rejected the installation of FGR.

Comment: NPS commented that Verso Androscoggin did not follow the EPA's Cost Control Manual (CCM) method for evaluating add-on controls and Verso Androscoggin's capital recovery factor is inflated. NPS recalculated the cost effectiveness of the SNCR using a capital recovery factor using 7% interest over a 20-year life as opposed to 12.4% interest over a 10-year life used by the State. NPS found the revised cost to be $5,553/ton NO X removed instead of the Maine DEP value of $5,973/ton NO X removed. However, due to the assumption of low utilization, NPS suggested that the cost-effectiveness be reevaluated should boiler utilization increase.

Response: The Regional Haze Rule does not require States to use EPA's CCM to evaluate the costs of control technologies, though it represents a good reference tool. See 70 FR 39104, 39127 (July 6, 2005). The analysis provided by NPS, which used the CCM procedure for coal-fired EGUs (including a lower capital recovery factor than the State used) and EPA's IPM model, was only $420/ton less than Maine's cost determination, supporting the reasonableness of Maine's evaluation. EPA does not believe that this relatively small difference calculated in cost effectiveness calls into question the reasonableness of the State's analysis. 6

States must determine BART eligibility and controls only during this first planning period and therefore Maine is not required to reevaluate its BART determination if utilization of the boiler increases. The Regional Haze Rule however makes clear that after a BART determination is made, the source is subject to the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d). Therefore, consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, Maine may in subsequent planning periods reevaluate the controls and visibility impact of Verso Androscoggin as part of the State's long term strategy. EPA finds that Maine reasonably concluded that based on the current boiler 20% utilization, SNCR is not a cost effective control for Power Boilers 1 and 2 at Verso Androscoggin.

Comment: NPS commented that if EPA uses incremental cost to override an average cost-effectiveness value (which was at a level found to be reasonable in the Four Corners BART proposal), it must show how the incremental costs of switching to lower sulfur fuels at the Verso Androscoggin mill are higher than other incremental costs that have been accepted.

Response: The Regional Haze Rule grants States the authority to make the initial determination of what constitutes BART. EPA reviews that determination to ensure the appropriate factors were considered and that the determination is reasonable. The Four Corners BART proposal cited by NPS was an EPA proposal for a federal implementation plan (FIP), where EPA has the role of initially determining BART, and is therefore not comparable to EPA's role in approving Maine's SIP. For the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers, EPA did not rely on the incremental cost in making its determination. Rather, EPA evaluated Maine's determination that with minimal visibility improvement beyond what would be achieved with 0.7% sulfur #6 fuel oil, the conversion to #2 fuel oil or natural gas was not justified. In addition, as noted above, the Power Boilers at Verso Androscoggin will be subject to a 0.5% sulfur limit no later than January 1, 2018, as part of Maine's long term strategy. EPA finds Maine's determination that 0.7% sulfur fuel oil represents BART for Verso Androscoggin to be reasonable.

Comment: NPS commented that the average cost effectiveness of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the Verso Androscoggin WFI is about $4,200/ton, which is much lower than EPA determined to be acceptable at Four Corners, and is lower than the benchmark $/ton values used by New York, Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. NPS commented that Maine DEP/US EPA are essentially relying upon the cost of controls versus the resulting visibility improvement in reaching their conclusion. NPS claimed to have shown that the cost/dv for SCR on the Verso Androscoggin Waste Fuel Incinerator (WFI) falls well below the nationwide average, is reasonable, and should constitute BART for the Verso Androscoggin WFI.

Response: The limited usefulness of the thresholds for Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin is discussed above. EPA has not yet proposed action on the New York submittal. Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and paper facility. The BART Guidelines do not include a presumptive level of control for this type of facility and Maine is not required to follow the BART Guidelines for setting BART for this unit. Four Corners is a 2,040 MW coal-fired EGU. The presumptive level of control for this type of facility is outlined in the BART Guidelines. The BART Guidelines do not include a presumptive level of control for pulp and paper facilities like Verso Androscoggin. The greatest visibility impact at any Class I Area due to NO X from Four Corners is 5.95 dv, 7 whereas, the highest visibility impact from the WFI at Verso Androscoggin is 0.4 dv. The highest visibility impact from the WFI at Verso Androscoggin is less than the threshold for applying BART to BART-eligible sources established by many States, including Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin which use a 0.5 dv threshold. EPA estimates that the cost of installation of SCR for Units 1 through 5 at Four Corners ranges from $2,515/ton-$3,163/ton. 8 NPS estimated a cost of control for the Four Corners units on the order of $1,326/ton-$1,882/ton NO X removed, with an expected visibility improvement of 2.43 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area. 9 The determination of BART for Four Corners is not directly comparable to EPA's approval of Maine's determinations because of the much greater expected visibility improvement and, as noted above, the fact that the Four Corners proposal is a FIP. EPA finds that Maine reasonably determined that for an expected visibility improvement of 0.4 dv (SCR) or 0.1 dv (SNCR), the installation of SCR at a cost of $4,200/ton or SNCR at a cost of $4,950/ton on the 48 MW WFI at Verso Androscoggin is cost prohibitive.

Comment: NPS commented that based on recalculated visibility benefits at several of the nearest Class I Areas on the highest impacting visibility days, NPS determined that lower sulfur (0.5% & 0.3%) fuels at Wyman Station Units #3 and #4 would improve cumulative visibility by a total of 2.0-3.4 dv. This results in a cumulative cost-effectiveness value of $0.8-$2.1 million/dv, which NPS claimed is relatively inexpensive compared to the average $18 million/dv that they are seeing accepted by States and sources that are proposing reductions under BART. NPS claimed that because neither Maine DEP nor EPA had presented any benchmark against which to compare their cost/dv estimates, EPA must agree that BART for Wyman boilers #3 and #4 is the use of 0.3% sulfur residual oil. In addition, NPS claimed that EPA should require the use of 0.3% sulfur fuel oil to meet the 90% reduction in the MANE-VU “Ask”.

Response: The Maine BART limit for Wyman Station requires the reduction from 2.0% sulfur in fuel oil in boiler #3 to the use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil and the continued use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel in boiler #4 by January 1, 2013. In addition, as part of Maine's long term strategy, both boilers, along with the two other boilers on site, will be required to meet a further reduction to 0.5% sulfur limit by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A), which will become federally enforceable under today's final action. This reduced sulfur limit will result in at least the additional 2.0 dv cumulative visibility improvement indicated in the NPS comments.

While it is helpful additional information in some cases, the BART Guidelines do not require the use of cumulative visibility impact when addressing the visibility factor. NPS calculated that the reduction from 0.5% sulfur to 0.3% sulfur fuel oil would only result in 0.37 dv visibility improvement at the highest impacted area from boiler #3 and 0.41 dv visibility improvement from boiler #4, incurring an annual fuel cost increase of at least $886,844 and $4,103,863, respectively. 10 However, NPS's calculations improperly compare the implementation cost based on lower utilization (most recent two years) with visibility benefits calculated using a higher utilization, suggesting that the true cost effectiveness values at lower utilization values may be higher than those calculated by NPS. Maine reasonably determined that 0.7% sulfur is BART for Wyman Station Units #3 and #4. 11

Comment: NPS recommends that emission controls for two Maine sources, Dragon Cement, a Portland cement manufacturing facility, and SD Warren Company (SAPPI), an integrated pulp and paper mill, be evaluated under the reasonable progress provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Initial BART modeling for these two sources demonstrated that they cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Acadia National Park. These two sources were subsequently found not to be subject to BART. NPS contends that, consistent with EPA Region 6's partial disapproval of Arkansas' Regional Haze SIP (Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0727), these Maine sources must be considered in Maine's reasonable progress analysis.

Response: Under EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (“Reasonable Progress Guidance”), States may identify key pollutants and source categories for the first planning period. 12 MANE-VU and Maine determined that the key pollutant which contributes to visibility impairment in the Maine Class I Areas is SO 2 . Therefore, in accordance with EPA's guidance, 13 Maine and MANE-VU focused on SO 2 for the first planning period. As a result of the four factor analysis for reasonable progress, MANE-VU and Maine agreed to pursue the following emission reductions strategies to ensure reasonable progress for the first planning period: Timely implementation of BART; 90% reduction in SO 2 emissions from the 167 highest visibility impacting electrical generating units; a reduction in the sulfur in fuel content of distillate and residual oil; and continued evaluation of other emission reduction strategies. These reduction strategies (the MANE-VU Ask) represent individual reasonable progress goals, to be expressed in deciviews, which MANE-VU States committed to achieving (i.e., each State modeled what reductions would be achieved with these strategies and then converted those reductions into visibility improvement to set their reasonable progress goals). Each State is responsible for crafting a long term strategy that is intended to meet these reasonable progress goals. The SAPPI Power Boiler #1 is subject to control under Maine's long term strategy under the State's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A). This law limits the SAPPI Power Boiler #1 to burning 0.5% sulfur fuel oil no later than January 1, 2018.

EPA's partial disapproval of the Arkansas SIP was due to a lack of four factor analyses for reasonable progress. However, a full four factor analysis was undertaken at a regional level as part of Maine's role in MANE-VU; this resulted in the MANE-VU Ask discussed above. See 76 FR 73956. The approval of Maine's SIP is therefore not inconsistent with the partial disapproval of Arkansas' SIP. Consistent with the Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, Maine was not required to evaluate additional controls for Dragon Products and SAPPI during this first planning period in setting its reasonable progress goals.

Comment: NPS commented that while Power Boiler #1 at SAPPI is not BART-eligible, MANE-VU modeling across the four Class I Areas modeled in and near Maine shows that Power Boiler #1 has a cumulative impact of 1.8 dv, with 1.4 dv attributable to sulfates. The greatest impact (0.8 dv) occurs at Acadia National Park. With respect to SAPPI Power Boiler #1, NPS suggested that EPA should evaluate additional emission reductions as required by the reasonable progress provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.

Response: Under Maine's long term strategy, Power Boiler #1 at SAPPI will be required to reduce the current sulfur content of the residual oil from 2.0% to 0.5% by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A) which will become federally enforceable in today's action. When developing the emission projection for modeling future visibility conditions resulting from the various control strategies, Maine had originally projected that BART control on Power Boiler #1 would result in an emission reduction of 1,442 tons per year. Maine clarified that the expected reductions from the application of BART are still being met via operation changes. This projection is separate from the additional reductions which will be achieved by the application of the low sulfur fuel oil requirements of Maine's long term strategy. As noted above, Maine's decision to not include controls in addition to the MANE-VU Ask on the SAPPI Power Boiler #1 during this first planning period is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance.

Comment: NPS commented that while they agree that Dragon (kiln) is a reconstructed source, they believe that the reasonable progress provisions of the Regional Haze Rule require that Dragon reduce NO X emissions by 45% as expeditiously as possible.

Response: As noted above, Maine conducted a full four factor analysis to set its reasonable progress goals, resulting in the MANE-VU Ask. The long term strategy provision establishes enforceable limits that the State will undertake to meet the reasonable progress goals. We are interpreting NPS's comment as requesting that EPA require Maine to evaluate additional reductions from Dragon Products as part of its long term strategy.

Dragon Products currently operates selective non-catalytic reduction to reduce NO X emissions from the kiln. The estimated efficiency of the current system is 18%-22% NO X emission reductions. EPA agrees that the kiln is a candidate for future emission reductions as part of Maine's long term strategy during subsequent planning periods. However, consistent with the Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, during this first planning period Maine is reducing the visibility impacts from SO 2 , which is the greatest visibility impacting pollutant at its Class I Areas. The major pollutant of concern from Dragon Products is NO X . In subsequent planning periods, Maine will once again determine the pollutant(s) with the greatest impact on visibility and implement appropriate emission reduction measures as part of Maine's long term strategy for future planning periods. Maine was not required to include emissions reductions from Dragon Products during this first planning period.

Comment: NPCA commented that the Dragon Products kiln was not considered subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at the time of its modifications. NPCA claims that Dragon Products was appropriately classified as a BART-eligible source and should be subject to the BART determination reached by Maine in its earlier regional haze submittal.

Response: As noted in the proposal, in a letter dated September 14, 2011, Maine DEP informed EPA that it had determined that Dragon Products was a reconstructed source and not obliged to meet BART. 14 EPA's BART Guidelines state that “any emission unit for which reconstruction `commenced' after August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible.” See 70 FR 39104, 39160 (July 6, 2005). However, as noted above, the BART Guidelines are only mandatory for 750 MW power plants. Therefore, Maine has discretion to follow the BART Guidelines interpretation of BART-eligible or to choose a different, reasonable interpretation. Maine's decision that, as a source that was reconstructed after August 7, 1977, Dragon Products is not BART-eligible is reasonable and not inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule or the CAA.

That Dragon Products may not have been subject to the NSPS at the time of reconstruction is irrelevant for this purpose. Dragon Products was undisputedly subject to the more stringent Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, and therefore was exempt from the substantive requirements of the NSPS. 15 This does not affect the reasonableness of Maine's determination that Dragon Products is not BART-eligible.

Comment: NPCA commented that Maine's determinations must be judged as to their cost effectiveness in the context of other determinations; they cannot be deemed “not cost effective” without such comparison. NPCA states that the proposed determinations do not include any comparison to a State threshold, cost effectiveness determination from other States, or other comparative metric to justify rejection of reasonable costs. NPCA also notes that it is precisely because of the comparative nature of a cost effectiveness determination that the values must be calculated by the same method, as well as calibrated to the same period (present day value).

Response: BART determinations are developed based on the five factor analysis, of which cost effectiveness is only one factor. For sources other than 750 MW power plants, States retain the discretion to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines. See earlier response on cost thresholds.

Comment: NPCA commented that in several of the BART determinations, cost effectiveness determinations relied heavily on significantly lower usage (~20%) of the source in question (e.g., Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers, FPL Wyman), claiming that this results in much higher cost effectiveness values than otherwise would have occurred. NPCA commented that if these capacities are relied upon in BART or reasonable progress determinations, they must be made enforceable, with permit conditions limiting the hours of operation or automatically requiring additional controls in the event that specific annual usage is exceeded.

Response: According to the BART Guidelines, when calculating the average cost of control, “The baseline emission rate should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. In general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions from a baseline period. In the absence of enforceable emission limitations, you calculate baseline emissions based upon continuation of past practices.” On the other hand, the BART Guidelines require enforceable limitations if the utilization or other parameters used to determine future emissions differ from past practice. BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d. See 70 FR 39156, 39167. The reduced utilization of Wyman Station is based on past practice and is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule. 16

Comment: EPA received a comment letter signed by 911 members of Credo Action stating “As a Maine resident, I urge you to greatly reduce haze pollution at Maine's national parks. Unfortunately, the plan EPA is currently considering doesn't go far enough. To protect the health of children, communities and our parks, Maine and EPA must do more to hold polluters in the state accountable and require adequate emission reductions.” In addition to the comment letter, 122 signators provided additional comments. Twenty-eight people requested that we protect Maine's air quality, and an additional thirty-eight specifically mentioned Acadia National Park. Twenty-seven people cited health concerns in regards to the current air quality, twenty-three people expressed a need to reduce air pollution, and twenty-one people stated that we need stronger rules to reduce air pollution.

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to reduce the visibility and health impacts from man-made pollution at the Federal Class I Areas, such as Acadia National Park. EPA's approval of Maine's SIP will result in significant reductions in emissions and improvement in visibility. This represents only the first step towards meeting the national goal of natural conditions in federal Class I Areas.

EPA is approving Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is also approving the following license conditions and incorporating them into the SIP: Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H of license amendment A-406-77-3-M for Katahdin Paper Company issued on July 8, 2009; license amendment A-214-77-9-M for Rumford Paper Company issued on January 8, 2010; license amendment A-22-77-5-M for Verso Bucksport, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-214-77-2-M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly Domtar) issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-388-77-2-M for FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-19-77-5-M for S. D. Warren Company issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-203-77-11-M for Verso Androscoggin LLC issued November 2, 2010; and license amendment A-180-77-1-A for Red Shield Environmental LLC issued November 29, 2007.

In addition, EPA is approving Maine's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA § 603-A, sub-§ 2(A), and incorporating this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is approving the following Maine state regulation and incorporating it into the SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.

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 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 Clean Air Act; 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).

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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. 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).)

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

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

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

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

On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas. On June 9, 2011, EPA published an action proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision (including the BART determination for Eastman) to address the first implementation period for regional haze. See 76 FR 33662. EPA proposed a limited approval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Tennessee on the basis that this revision, as a whole, strengthens the Tennessee SIP. Also in that action, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of this same SIP revision because of the deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP revision arising from the remand of CAIR to EPA by the D.C. Circuit.

On July 26, 2011, EPA reopened the comment period for EPA's proposed actions related to Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision. See 76 FR 44534. See section II of this rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the proposed actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Also, detailed background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed actions is provided in EPA's June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking. See 76 FR 33662.

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA recently issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NO X and SO 2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (“the Transport Rule,” also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken final action on that rule.

Also on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule. In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

EPA received six sets of comments on the June 9, 2011, rulemaking proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were received from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Eastman, TDEC, the National Park Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Full sets of the comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) are provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter urges EPA to move expeditiously to assess, through modeling, whether the emissions reductions that will be achieved under the Transport Rule will be sufficient to satisfy BART requirements for electric generating units (EGUs) under the regional haze program.

Response 1: This comment does not directly address the proposed action in the June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking. Rather, the comment urges EPA to act more expeditiously in evaluating the impacts of the Transport Rule on regional haze. EPA appreciates the Commenter's interest in the proposed rule and notes that the Agency has performed modeling analyses to determine the visibility improvement expected from the implementation of the Transport Rule and compared the results to the improvements expected from BART. On December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219), EPA proposed its determination that the Transport Rule achieves greater reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas (including Tennessee's two areas) than source-specific BART ( i.e., that the Transport Rule is “better than BART”). Based on this proposed action, EPA believes that the Transport Rule will satisfy BART requirements for SO 2 and NO X for EGUs in Tennessee. The final action in that rulemaking will determine whether the Transport Rule may satisfy BART requirements for Tennessee's EGUs.

Comment 2: The Commenter requests that EPA delay final action on the June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking related to Tennessee's regional SIP revision so that the BART requirements are harmonized with other pending federal air quality regulatory actions that affect Eastman's Tennessee facility ( e.g., 1-hour SO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for industrial boilers (Industrial Boiler MACT), and the Transport Rule). The Commenter asserts that this delay will provide Eastman with an opportunity to meet all of the requirements of these programs at one time and will allow the Company to comply with all pending requirements in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Response 2: Under section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, EPA is required to act within specified timeframes to approve or disapprove SIP revisions. Tennessee submitted its regional haze SIP revision for EPA review on April 4, 2008, and because EPA did not approve or disapprove the SIP within 12 months as required by section 110(k)(2), the National Parks Conservation Association and other interested parties (Plaintiffs) sued EPA to take action. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA is now operating under a consent decree to finalize approval or disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze SIP. The proposed consent decree originally required EPA to finalize an approval or disapproval action on Tennessee's entire regional haze SIP by March 15, 2012. After publication of EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action on Tennessee's SIP, the State and Eastman entered into discussions with the Plaintiffs regarding the BART determination for Eastman. The Eastman facility is considering a conversion to natural gas in one or two of its powerhouses in lieu of continuing to use coal and retrofitting its facility pursuant to the facility's BART determination to reduce its SO 2 emissions. Based on these discussions and a March 14, 2012, agreement between Tennessee and Eastman regarding possible control options to satisfy BART, the Plaintiffs agreed to extend the date in the consent decree for EPA to take final action on the BART determination for Eastman. Accordingly, EPA is taking no action on this BART determination at this time since EPA expects Tennessee to submit a revised BART determination for Eastman in the near future. EPA will take action on Eastman BART in a separate rulemaking. A copy of the March 14, 2012, agreement between Eastman and Tennessee is included in the docket for this action.

Comment 3: The Commenter indicates that it is fundamentally inequitable to set the BART compliance deadline earlier for non-EGUs (in reference to the Eastman facility) than for EGUs and to require non-EGUs to make necessary investments earlier than EGUs. Further, the Commenter asserts that this step is not required to ensure reasonable progress in visibility improvement in Class I areas.

Response 3: It is not clear what compliance dates the Commenter is referring to. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e), Tennessee submitted a regional haze SIP containing BART determinations for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area and schedules for compliance with BART for each of these sources. Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP also contains a requirement, based on the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), that each source subject to BART be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of the SIP revision. Therefore, the latest BART compliance date under the Tennessee regional haze SIP for the State's subject-to-BART sources (excluding Eastman for the reasons discussed below and in Response 2) is in 2017, five years after final action on this rulemaking. Under the aforementioned March 14, 2012, agreement between Tennessee and Eastman, the BART compliance date for Eastman is the same compliance date that Eastman would have received had EPA taken final action on the Eastman BART determination on March 15, 2012, if Eastman does not convert its BART subject unit to natural gas. Additionally, under the RHR, states may opt to implement an alternative measure to source-specific BART that must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by implementation of BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). For any BART alternative measure, all emissions reductions must take place during the period of the first long-term strategy (LTS). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

In addition, the Utility Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT require compliance with their respective standards by 2015 as does the Transport Rule, a rule that applies only to EGUs. It is therefore possible that an EGU relying on the Transport Rule to satisfy BART will be required to implement BART (via the Transport Rule) before a non-EGU. The SO 2 and ozone NAAQS processes have not progressed sufficiently to establish any independent requirements for industrial or utility boilers.

Comment 4: The Commenter questions EPA's authority to issue a limited approval of Tennessee's SIP revision. Further, the Commenter states that EPA should reach full resolution of the issue of what constitutes BART and reasonable progress for EGUs before approving any portion of Tennessee's regional haze SIP.

Response 4: EPA has the authority to issue a limited approval and believes that it is appropriate and necessary to promulgate a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze SIP at this time. This action results in an approval of the entire regional haze submission and all of its elements, preserving the visibility benefits offered by the SIP while providing EPA with the opportunity to demonstrate that the Transport Rule is better than BART. As noted above, EPA has already published a proposed rule reflecting this demonstration. EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for emissions reduction measures for the reasons discussed in section IV of the June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking (see 76 FR 33662) and therefore proposed to grant limited approval and limited disapproval of the Tennessee regional haze SIP. It is not necessary to reach full resolution on whether the Transport Rule is better than BART for EPA to issue a limited approval. Granting full approval at a later date would only delay realization of the SIP's visibility benefits whereas the SIP is strengthened now by acting through the limited approval.

Comment 5: The Commenter asserts that the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS is very restrictive and may result in fuel switching from coal to natural gas. In addition, the Commenter mentions that sources upgrading their facilities may be faced with possible greenhouse gas best available control technology determinations that would drive repowering from coal to natural gas. Further, the Commenter mentions that sources must also consider what controls may be required by the Transport Rule and the Industrial Boiler MACT. The Commenter concludes with a request that EPA time the final approval of the Tennessee Regional Haze SIP to allow BART sources to have a reasonable amount of time to plan for the implementation of the four above-listed regulatory programs, and mentions that the burden of meshing all of the planning and construction of equipment to meet these programs is too much to ask of industries that are trying to stay competitive and to keep citizens employed.

Response 5: See response to Comment 2.

Comment 6: The Commenter states that EPA should have considered updated information in evaluating the BART determination for Alcoa Tennessee's (Alcoa's) primary aluminum smelter. In the Commenter's opinion, based on this information, Alcoa should have: (1) Conducted a full five-step analysis of sodium-based scrubbing for potline SO 2 emissions; (2) used EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (EPA's “Cost Manual”) to estimate costs, or better document and justify costs that deviate from EPA's Cost Manual approach; (3) justified the need for a redundant scrubbing module (absorber), or revised the facility's estimates to eliminate it; (4) provided modeling results consistent with established modeling procedures for all Class I areas within 300 kilometers for the base case as well as the 95 percent potline SO 2 removal case; and (5) explained how the facility objectively evaluated the resulting visibility benefits to all Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the facility. The Commenter states that Alcoa also appears to have overestimated costs for limestone slurry forced oxidation scrubbing. The Commenter asserts that wet scrubbing of potline emissions is BART at Alcoa.

Response 6: In December 2007, the Commenter submitted comments to Tennessee on the State's regional haze SIP, based on the information available to both EPA and the State at that time, and raised no substantive issues regarding Tennessee's BART determination for Alcoa. EPA does not believe that the Commenter's expressed concerns regarding Alcoa's BART analysis (in response to the June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking) justify reconsideration of Tennessee's BART determination.

Tennessee considered the degree of improvement in visibility reasonably anticipated to result from the implementation of the evaluated control technologies and determined that, for the two Class I areas that modeled an impact from Alcoa of greater than 0.5 deciview, the highest 98th percentile visibility improvement from wet scrubbing potline emissions at Alcoa's BART-eligible source was 0.72 deciview at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Class I area receiving the greatest impact from Alcoa's SO 2 emissions. The visibility improvement at the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, Tennessee's other Class I area, was 0.27 deciview. While the Commenter questioned the modeled visibility improvements, the Commenter presented no alternative assessment. Hence, the best available estimate of visibility improvement from the Commenter's suggested BART determination remains as it is presented in the SIP. EPA also notes that both of Tennessee's Class I areas are projected to meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress with the State's BART determination for Alcoa.

The degree of visibility improvement reasonably anticipated from each evaluated BART control technology is one of the five statutory factors that a state must consider in making a BART determination, and the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor by a state will vary depending on the particular circumstances in each determination. See 70 FR 39170. In the SIP, the State weighed the projected improvements in visibility against the cost effectiveness calculation as well as the projected capital and annual control costs. Tennessee also considered the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance associated with wet scrubbers in evaluating possible BART controls. The State determined that the capital costs and control costs for the wet scrubbers were approximately $200,000,000 and $39,000,000, respectively, and that the scrubbers would require 180 million gallons per year of makeup water, generate 17,600 tons per year of solid waste requiring off-site disposal, and increase PM 2.5 emissions by 438 tons per year. Considering all of these factors, Tennessee determined that wet scrubbers were not appropriate as BART. The cost effectiveness would remain substantially higher than the values that Tennessee considered reasonable for any other BART source even with the Commenter's suggested changes to the cost of compliance factor in the BART determination.

When considering all of the BART factors, including the limited visibility improvement projected in Tennessee's Class I areas, EPA believes that the State's BART determination is reasonable using either the cost effectiveness values calculated by Tennessee or the values presented by the Commenter. EPA reviewed Tennessee's BART analysis for Alcoa and concludes it was conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approach set forth in EPA's BART Guidelines and reflects a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this particular source.

Comment 7: The Commenter recommends that EPA grant full, not limited, approval of the Tennessee SIP for regional haze, and mentions that such full approval should not be delayed pending EPA's analysis to confirm that the Transport Rule would provide sufficient reductions to satisfy BART requirements. Rather, in the Commenter's opinion, EPA must grant full approval but reserve the option of having the SIP reopened in the unlikely event that its analysis indicates that emissions reductions beyond the Transport Rule are necessary in Tennessee to meet the national visibility goals.

Response 7: See response to Comment 4.

Comment 8: The Commenter asserts that EPA should give full, not limited, approval to Tennessee's regional haze SIP because CAIR and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) remain in effect. Further, the Commenter states that EPA could not have a basis to propose or promulgate disapproval or limited disapproval of a regional haze SIP due to its reliance on CAIR and on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) unless EPA had first determined, based on a thorough and defensible analysis, that: (a) The emissions reductions and associated visibility-improvement benefits that are likely to result from the final Transport Rule will not be at least comparable to those achieved under CAIR; and (b) for that reason, the Transport Rule (i) will not satisfy the CAA's BART alternative requirements for NO X and SO 2 emissions from affected EGUs and (ii) cannot be used, in at least the same measure as CAIR was used, to help meet reasonable progress requirements for regional haze. The Commenter opines that because the Agency has not made and cannot make such a determination at this time, there is no basis for EPA to do anything other than to give full approval to Tennessee's SIP. The Commenter concludes by stating that EPA should recognize that full approval of the SIP is required because, in the Commenter's opinion, “the SIP is fully compliant with relevant EPA regulations—which are as binding on EPA as they are on the state and sources—as those regulations existed at the time of the SIP's development and submission and as they exist today.”

Response 8: See response to Comment 4.

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Today, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, except for the Eastman BART determination. This limited approval results in approval of Tennessee's entire regional haze submission and all its elements except for the Eastman BART determination. EPA is taking this approach because Tennessee's SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the State and having federal approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being included in the SIP.

In this action, EPA is also finalizing a limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision insofar as this SIP revision relies on CAIR to address the impact of emissions from the State's own EGUs. As explained in the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, “[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment.” Final limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does not affect the federal enforceability of the measures in the subject SIP revision nor prevent state implementation of these measures. The legal effect of the final limited disapproval for Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision is to provide EPA the authority to issue a federal implementation plan at any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than two years after the effective date of EPA's final action. As explained in the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, “[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment.”

EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on April 4, 2008, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. As discussed above, EPA is not taking final action on the BART determination for Eastman at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On November 5, 2009, EPA issued a concurrence letter to Georgia stating that the substitution of a HOT lane TCM for an existing HOV lane TCM met the CAA section 176(c)(8) requirements for substituting TCMs in an area's approved SIP. See also EPA's Guidance for Implementing the CAA section 176(c)(8) Transportation Control Measure Substitution and Addition Provision contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users which was signed into law on August 10, 2005, dated January 2009. This substitution was an update to TCMs previously approved on March 18, 1999, and April 26, 1999. As a part of the concurrence process, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on proposed TCM substitution. Public notice and comment was provided by the Atlanta metropolitan planning organization, Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), during the revision to the transportation improvement program to incorporate the HOT lane substitution project. The public notice was published in the Daily Report and on the ARC Web page at: www.atlantaregional.com. Through this concurrence process, EPA determined that the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(8) were met, including the requirement that the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions than the control measure to be replaced. Upon EPA's concurrence, the HOT lane substitution took effect as a matter of federal law. A copy of EPA's concurrence letter is included in the Docket for this action. This letter can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0136. In accordance with the requirements for TCM substitution, on February 5, 2010, EPD submitted a request for EPA to update the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP to reflect EPA's previous approval of the TCM substitution of the HOV lane with the HOT lane conversion TCM in its SIP (the subject of this administrative change). Today, EPA is taking administrative action to update the non-regulatory provisions of the Georgia SIP in 40 CFR 52.570(e) to reflect EPA's concurrence on the substitution of a TCM for the conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes:

EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs.

Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” because the substitution was made through the process included in CAA section 176(c)(8) and because the public already had an opportunity to comment on this substitution during the public comment period prior to approval of the substitution. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notice of the updated Georgia SIP Compilation and “Identification of Plan” portion of the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this administrative action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

This administrative action also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This administrative action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This administrative action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The administrative action also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This administrative action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Today's administrative action simply codifies a provision which is already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). These announced actions were effective upon EPA's concurrence. 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 this action in the Federal Register. This update to Georgia's SIP Compilation is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

I. Background II. Analysis of State's Submittal III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). 1 Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the Atlanta Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of Section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date 3 years after the June 15, 2004, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Atlanta Area's original attainment date was June 15, 2007. See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.

The Atlanta Area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007 (the applicable attainment date for marginal nonattainment areas), and did not qualify for any extension of the attainment date as a marginal area. As a consequence of this failure, on March 6, 2008, EPA published a rulemaking determining that the Atlanta Area failed to attain and, consistent with section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, the Atlanta Area was reclassified by operation of law to the next highest classification, or “moderate” nonattainment. See 73 FR 12013, March 6, 2008. When an area is reclassified, a new attainment date for the reclassified area must be established. Section 181 of the CAA explains that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after designation, or June 15, 2010. EPA further required that Georgia submit the SIP revisions meeting the new moderate area requirements as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2008.

Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date under specified conditions. On November 30, 2010, EPA determined that Georgia met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. See 75 FR 73969. As a result, EPA extended the Atlanta Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On October 21, 2009, Georgia submitted an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable available control technology (RACT), contingency measures, a 2002 base-year emissions inventory and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta Area (hereafter referred to as “the Atlanta Area's attainment demonstration submission.”) The reasonable further progress (RFP) plan was also submitted on October 21, 2009, under separate cover letter. Subsequently, on June 23, 2011 (76 FR 36873), EPA determined that the Atlanta Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The determination of attaining data was based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS were suspended as a result of the determination of attainment, so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.582(d).

On February 16, 2012, Georgia withdrew the Atlanta Area's attainment demonstration (except RACT and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918; however, such withdrawal does not suspend the emissions inventory requirement found in CAA section 182(a)(1). Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. EPA is now approving the emissions inventory portion of the Atlanta Area's attainment demonstration SIP revision submitted by the State of Georgia on October 21, 2009, as required by section 182(a)(1). EPA will take action on the RACT portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP revision, and on the RFP SIP revision in a separate action.

As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area. Georgia selected 2002 as base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.915. Emissions contained in the Atlanta attainment plan cover the general source categories of stationary point and area sources, non-road and on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. A detailed discussion of the emissions inventory development can be found in Appendix K of the Georgia submittal; a summary is provided below. Table 3-4 in the October 29, 2009, submittal lists electric generating unit (EGU) point sources in and near the Atlanta nonattainment area and the average daily ozone season nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions. Table 3-5 in the October 29, 2009, submittal lists non-EGU point sources in the Atlanta nonattainment counties with NO X emissions larger than 100 tons/year.

The tables below provide a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NO X and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

The 182(a)(1) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule for all source categories (i.e., point, area, non-road mobile and on-road mobile). This inventory often forms the basis of data that are updated with more recent information and data that also is used in their attainment demonstration modeling inventory. Such was the case in the development of the 2002 emissions inventory that was submitted in the State's attainment demonstration SIP for this Area. The 2002 emissions inventory was based on data developed with the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) contractors and submitted by the States to the 2002 National Emissions Inventory. Several iterations of the 2002 inventories were developed for the different emissions source categories resulting from revisions and updates to the data. This resulted in the use of version G2 of the updated data to represent the point sources' emissions. Data from many databases, studies and models (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, fuel programs, the NONROAD 2002 model data for commercial marine vessels, locomotives and Clean Air Market Division, etc.) resulted in the inventory submitted in this SIP. The data were developed according to current EPA emissions inventory guidance “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” (August 2005) and a quality assurance project plan that was developed through VISTAS and approved by EPA. EPA agrees that the process used to develop this inventory was adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and the implementing regulations.

EPA has reviewed Georgia's emissions inventory and finds that it is adequate for the purposes of meeting section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement. The emissions inventory is approvable because the emissions were developed consistent with the CAA, implementing regulations and EPA guidance for emission inventories.

EPA is approving the 2002 base-year emissions inventory portion of the Atlanta Area's attainment demonstration SIP revision, submitted by the State of Georgia on October 21, 2009, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current action, however, is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for the Atlanta Area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the future. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 25, 2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 24, 2012.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 25, 2012 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

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 June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

On October 6, 2009, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA promulgated revised HMIWI EGs and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from HMIWI units. See 74 FR 51368. EPA codified these revised regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. A HMIWI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c is any device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the revised guidelines at subpart Ce, States with subject sources must submit to EPA plans that implement the revised EGs. The plans must be at least as protective as the revised EGs, which are not Federally enforceable until EPA approves a State Plan (or promulgates a Federal Plan for implementation and enforcement).

On November 8, 2011 and supplemented on December 28, 2011, Illinois submitted its revised HMIWI State Plan to EPA. This submission followed public hearings for preliminary adoption of a revised State rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 229 on June 8, 2011 and June 28, 2011, and for final adoption on September 22, 2011. The revised rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 229, which establishes emission standards for existing HMIWI, became effective on September 30, 2011. The revised Plan includes the revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 229.

The State submittal is based on the revised HMIWI EGs (40 CFR subpart Ce) and the revised New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) for HMIWI promulgated on October 6, 2009. The State's revised rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 229 incorporates significant portions of the HMIWI EG's. As set forth in CAA section 129 and in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Ce, the revised State Plan address the thirteen minimum required elements, as follows:

1. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the HMIWI State Plan and identification of the enforceable mechanisms. Illinois has provided a detailed list of its legal authorities to carry out its Plan and identified the enforceable mechanism.

2. An inventory of affected HMIWI units, including language that states that sources subject to the standard “include but are not limited to” the inventory in the State Plan and an additional statement that says “should another source be discovered subsequent to this notice, there will be no need to reopen the State Plan.” Illinois has provided this.

3. An inventory of the emissions from each of the HMIWI units. Illinois has provided this.

4. Emission limits for HMIWI that are the same as those required by the EG. Illinois has provided this.

5. Testing and monitoring requirements that are the same as those required by the EG. Illinois has provided this.

6. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are the same as those required by the EG. Illinois has provided this.

7. Operator training and qualification requirements that are the same as those required by the EG. Illinois has provided this.

8. Inspections requirements that are the same as those required by the EG. Illinois has provided this.

9. Waste management plan requirements that are the same as those in the EG. Illinois has provided this.

10. A compliance schedule with increments. Illinois has provided this.

11. A final compliance date of October 6, 2014. Illinois has provided this.

12. A record of public hearings on the revised State rule and Plan. Illinois has provided this.

13. A provision for State progress reports to EPA. Illinois will submit information pertaining to emissions, inspections, status of compliance, dates of performance testing, and enforcement actions to EPA's Emissions Inventory System and Air Facility System. Illinois has stated they will work with EPA regarding the format required for submission of performance test reports and correlation of State test data to emission limits.

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

EPA is approving the revised State Plan which Illinois submitted on November 8, 2011 and December 28, 2011, for the control of emissions from existing HMIWI sources in the State. EPA is publishing this approval notice without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan in the event adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 25, 2012 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by May 24, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective June 25, 2012.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

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

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Illinois' Section 111(d)/129 plan revision for HMIWI sources may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

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

On October 6, 2009, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA promulgated revised HMIWI EGs and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from HMIWI units. See 74 FR 51368. A HMIWI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c is any device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. EPA codified these revised regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the revised EGs at subpart Ce, States with subject sources must submit to EPA plans that implement the revised EGs. The plans must be at least as protective as the revised EGs, which are not Federally enforceable until EPA approves a State Plan (or promulgates a Federal Plan for implementation and enforcement).

On December 14, 2011, Indiana submitted its revised HMIWI State Plan, which EPA received on December 19, 2011. This submission followed public hearings for preliminary adoption of the revised State rule on May 4, 2011 and for final adoption on August 3, 2011. The State adopted the final rule on August 3, 2011 and it became effective on October 28, 2011. The State submitted a correction to the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on December 6, 2011 to correct a typographical error and it was accepted for filing. The correction was effective on January 20, 2012. The revised plan includes revisions to State rule 326 IAC 11-6, which establishes emission standards for existing HMIWI.

The State submittal is based on the revised HMIWI EGs (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) and the revised New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) for HMIWI promulgated on October 6, 2009. As set forth in section 129 of the Act and in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Ce, the revised State Plan addresses the thirteen minimum required elements, as follows:

1. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the HMIWI State Plan and identified the enforceable mechanisms. Indiana has provided a detailed list which demonstrated that it has such legal authority and identified the enforceable mechanism.

2. An inventory of affected HMIWI units, including language that states that sources subject to the standard “include but are not limited to” the inventory in the State Plan and an additional statement that says “should another source be discovered subsequent to this notice, there will be no need to reopen the State Plan.” Indiana has provided this.

3. An inventory of the emissions from each of the HMIWI units. Indiana has provided this.

4. Emission limits for HMIWI that are the same as those required by the EG. Indiana has provided this.

5. Testing and monitoring requirements are the same as those required by the EG. Indiana has provided this.

6. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are the same as those required by the EG. Indiana has provided this.

7. Operator training and qualification requirements are the same as those required by the EG. Indiana has provided this.

8. Inspections requirements are the same as those required by the EG. Indiana has provided this.

9. The waste management plan requirements are the same as those in the EG. Indiana has provided this.

10. A compliance schedule with increments. Indiana has provided this.

11. A final compliance date of October 6, 2014. Indiana has provided this.

12. A record of public hearings on the revised State rule and Plan. Indiana has provided this.

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

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

EPA is approving the revised State Plan which Indiana submitted on December 14, 2011, for the control of emissions from existing HMIWI sources in the State. EPA is publishing this approval notice without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan in the event adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 25, 2012 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by May 24, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective June 25, 2012.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

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

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Indiana's Section 111(d)/129 plan revision for HMIWI sources may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This technical amendment implements a technical correction that published in the Federal Register of March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13506) (FRL-9339-8), which removes a cross-reference erroneously placed in § 721.9719(a)(2)(ii) by a final rule that published in the Federal Register of February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6476) (FRL-9330-6).

In order to remove the erroneous cross-reference before the effective date of the February 8, 2012 final rule, EPA published the final rule technical correction in the Federal Register of March 7, 2012. Subsequently, however, the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) determined that the placement of the correction text in that document did not satisfy OFR's format requirements, and a second correction was necessary to effectuate the change in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Since the February 8, 2012 final rule had become effective, the OFR instructed EPA to do this second correction as a technical amendment to the CFR.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because notice and comment are unnecessary. The hazard communication requirement that is being removed was never intended to be included in the significant new use rule (SNUR), the PMN submitter who brought the error to EPA's attention is familiar with the issue, and EPA is not aware of and does not expect there to be persons who would be adversely affected by the change as there are no companies making plans based on erroneous notice and no harm resulting from deleting the unnecessary requirement for a developmental effect warning. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

This technical amendment effectuates the March 7, 2012 technical correction to remove an erroneous cross-reference that was placed in § 721.9719(a)(2)(ii) when the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 8, 2012, modifying significant new uses of tris carbamoyl triazine. The February 8, 2012 final rule addresses these requirements for that action (see Unit IX. of the preamble to that action). This technical amendment does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements.

As such, this technical amendment is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), nor does this technical amendment contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )

Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this technical amendment is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute (see Unit III. of this document), it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 USC 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Nor does this technical amendment significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

This technical amendment will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), nor will this technical amendment have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This technical amendment does not require any special considerations, OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). Nor will this technical amendment have any affect on energy supply, distribution or use as described in Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

This technical amendment 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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). The technical amendment also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (55 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is corrected by making the following technical amendment:

In FR Doc. 2011-26812 of November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74122) and FR Doc. 2011-33751 of January 4, 2012 (77 FR 217), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the “Correction of Errors” section below.

We issued the calendar year (CY) 2012 hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS)/ambulatory surgical center (ASC) final rule with comment period on November 1, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period). The CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period appeared in the November 30, 2011 Federal Register .

We issued a correction notice for the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period on December 30, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice). The CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice appeared in the January 4, 2012 Federal Register .

The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period and in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice. Accordingly, the corrections are effective January 1, 2012.

In the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we finalized a continuation of our policy to exclude line items that were eligible for payment in the claims year but did not meet the Medicare requirements for payment (76 FR 74141). Line items not meeting requirements for Medicare payment were rejected or denied during claims processing. It is our longstanding policy not to use line items that were rejected or denied for payment for modeling costs under the OPPS. In reviewing the claims data used to establish the ambulatory payment classification (APC) median costs for the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we discovered that the trim of unpaid lines was not applied correctly. Therefore, we published a correction notice in the Federal Register on January 4, 2012, to correct our programming logic in the OPPS data process to apply the line item trim correctly. We also recalculated the median costs for each separately paid service using the claims that resulted from the correctly applied trim. In this correction notice, we are correcting the revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk in our programming logic and the packaging status of two drug codes.

In the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we finalized a continuation of our policy to apply the hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) to the hospital's charges at the most detailed level possible, based on a revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk that contains a hierarchy of CCRs used to estimate costs from charges for each revenue code (76 FR 74134). This allowed us to estimate line-item costs for every claim in the dataset used to model the OPPS. In reviewing the program logic used to establish the APC median costs for the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we discovered that this revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk contained incorrect mappings due to misalignments for several revenue codes, specifically revenue codes 790 (Extra-Corp Shock Wave Therapy), 800 (Inpatient Dialysis), 801 (Inpatient Hemodialysis), 802 (Inpatient peritoneal dialysis), 803 (inpatient dialysis CAPD), 804 (Inpatient dialysis CCPD), and 809 (Other inp dialysis). In this correction notice, we are correcting the revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk in our program logic to accurately reflect the crosswalk available online at http://www.cms.gov/HospitalOutpatientPPS/03_crosswalk.asp#TopOfPage. To obtain accurate median costs, we applied the available CCRs to the appropriate revenue code charges to estimate cost and recalculated the APC median costs for each separately paid service. We are making no other changes to the programming described in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period or the subsequent CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice, which resolved a technical error in our cost modeling where the line item trim for eligible unpaid lines was not applied correctly. Those changes to the claims dataset used to model the OPPS APC median costs are reflected in this correction notice, since the combination of the line item trim and revenue code crosswalk in the data process have an interactive effect on the calculation of the APC payments.

The application of the correct revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk for the specific revenue codes resulted in changes to the APC median costs used to establish the relative payment weights, therefore affecting the CY 2012 OPPS payment rates, copayments, outlier threshold, and regulatory impact analysis. Due to changes in the APC median costs, we recalculated the budget neutral weight scaler discussed in section II.A.4. of the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period (76 FR 74189) and in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice when we addressed the line item trim issue. Using the updated unscaled relative weights, the CY 2012 budget neutrality weight scaler is changed from 1.3585 to 1.3597. We note that the weight scaler was initially corrected in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice (77 FR 218) from 1.3588 to 1.3585. We also note that changes associated with the revised APC median costs and the corrected budget neutrality weight scaler have no additional effect on the budget neutrality, in particular, those applied to the CY 2012 conversion factor. Using the corrected revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk in our programs, the CY 2012 OPPS fixed-dollar outlier threshold remains at $2,025, as published in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice.

We are also correcting the CY 2012 estimated impacts. The CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice made changes to accurately apply the line item trim in our ratesetting process. As previously stated in this correction notice we are applying a corrected revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk. The combined corrections to the line item trim and revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk affects the calculation of APC median costs and the CY 2012 OPPS payment rates. Therefore, this correction notice makes minor changes to Table 59—Estimated Impact of the Final CY 2012 for the Hospital OPPS.

To view the revised payment rates that result from the changed median costs as well as the correction to the packaging status of HCPCS codes J1642 and J1644, see the Addenda and supporting files that are posted on the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.gov/HospitalOutpatientPPS/HORD/. All revised Addenda for this correction notice will be contained in a zipped folder on the Web page associated with this correction notice. The corrected CY 2012 table of updated offset amounts is posted on the OPPS Web site under “Annual Policy Files” which is found on the left side of the page. The corrected file of median costs is found under supporting documentation for CMS-1525-FC.

ASC payment rates are based on the OPPS relative payment weights for the majority of services that are provided at ASCs. Therefore, the correct application of the line item based trim and the correct application of the revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk for the revenue codes specified above have an effect on the CY 2012 ASC relative payment weights and ASC payment rates. Due to the changes to the OPPS payment weights, we had to recalculate the budget neutral ASC weight scalar of 0.9466 discussed in section XIII.H.2.a of the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period (76 FR 74447 to 74448). In the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice, we corrected the application of the line item based trim; using the updated scaled OPPS relative weights, the CY 2012 budget neutrality ASC weight scalar changed from 0.9466 to 0.9477 (77 FR 218). In this correction notice, we corrected the application of the revenue code-to-cost center crosswalk for the revenue codes specified above; using the updated scaled OPPS relative weights, the CY 2012 budget neutrality ASC weight scalar changed from 0.9477 to 0.9481. The changes associated with the revised OPPS relative weights and the corrected budget neutrality ASC weight scalar have no effect on the CY 2012 ASC conversion factor. To view the revised ASC payment rates that result from the revised ASC relative payment weights, see the ASC Addenda that are posted on the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ASCPayment/ASC-Regulations-and-Notices.html. Select “CMS-1525-FC” from the list of regulations. All revised ASC addenda for this correction notice are contained in the zipped folder entitled “Addendum AA, BB, DD1, DD2, EE—revised ASC payment rates resulting from upcoming Federal Register Correction Notice publication” at the bottom of the page for CMS-1525-FC.

In the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we finalized a continuation of our policy to make a single packaging determination for a drug, rather than an individual healthcare common procedure coding system (HCPCS) code, when a drug has multiple HCPCS codes describing different dosages (76 FR 74303). For the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, there was an error in the calculation to determine the packaging status of drugs with multiple HCPCS codes that describe different dosages. This error resulted in the per-day cost for HCPCS J1642 (Injection, heparin sodium (heparin lock flush), per 10 units) and HCPCS J1644 (Injection, heparin sodium, per 1000 units) to be in excess of the $75 packaging threshold and both codes were consequently assigned to status indicator “K” (separately paid). After application of the correct calculation to determine the per-day cost for drugs that have multiple HCPCS codes describing different dosages, the per day cost for HCPCS J1642 and J1644 was below the $75 packaging threshold. Therefore, we are changing the status indicator assignment for HCPCS codes J1642 and J1644 from “K” to “N” (packaged) for CY 2012 to reflect this correction. In addition, because drugs that are determined to be packaged in the OPPS are also packaged under the ASC payment system, we are changing the ASC payment indicator assignment for HCPCS codes J1642 and J1644 from “K2” to “N1” (packaged) for CY 2012 to reflect the correction detailed above.

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

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

The policies and payment methodologies finalized in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period have previously been subjected to notice and comment procedures. This correction notice merely provides technical corrections to the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period and the subsequent CY 2012 OPPS/ASC correction notice. The CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period was promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking. This correction notice does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were finalized in the final rule with comment period. For example, to conform the document to the final policies of the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, this notice makes changes to revise inaccurate tabular information and update payment numbers used in the example for calculation of an adjusted Medicare Payment. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to undertake further notice and comment procedures with respect to this correction notice. In addition, we believe it is important for the public to have the correct information as soon as possible and find no reason to delay the dissemination of it. For the reasons stated above, we find that both notice and comment and the 30-day delay in effective date for this correction notice are unnecessary. Therefore, we find there is good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in effective date for this correction notice.

In FR Doc. 2011-33751 of January 4, 2012 (77 FR 217), make the following corrections:

1. On page 218, in the first column, in the second paragraph, in line 12, revise “1.3585” to read “1.3597”.

2. On page 218, in the third column, in line 11, revise “0.9477” to read “0.9481”.

3. On page 219, in the third column, in the first instruction, revise “1.3585” to read “1.3597”.

4. On page 222, in the first column—

A. In instruction 5.A, revise “$309.46” to read “$309.74”.

B. In instruction 5.B, revise “$303.27” to read “$303.54”.

C. In instruction 6.A, revise “$244.02” to read “$244.24” and revise “$309.46” to read “$309.74”.

5. On page 222, in the second column—

A. In instruction 6.B, revise “$239.14” to read “$239.35” and revise “$303.27” to read “$303.54”.

B. In instruction 6.C, revise “$123.78” to read “$123.90” and revise “$309.46” to read “$309.74”.

C. In instruction 6.D, revise “$121.31” to read “$121.42” and revise “$303.27” to read “$303.54”.

D. In instruction 6.E, revise “$367.80” to read “$368.13”.

E. In instruction 6.F, revise “$123.78” to read “$123.90” and revise “$244.02” to read “$244.24”.

F. In instruction 6.G, revise “$360.44” to read “$360.76”, “$239.14” to read “$239.35”, and “$121.31” to read “$121.42”.

G. In instruction 7.A, revise “$61.90” to read “$61.95”.

6. On page 222, in the third column—

A. In instruction 7.B, revise “$309.46” to read “$309.74”.

B. In instruction 9.A, revise “0.9477” to read “0.9481”.

C. In instruction 9.B, revise “0.9477” to read “0.9481”.

7. On pages 223 through 226, revise Table 59—Estimated Impact of the Final CY 2012 Changes for the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System to read as follows:

8. On page 226, in the first column, in instruction 11, revise “0.9477” to read “0.9481”.

B. Corrections to the Final Rule with Comment Period

In FR Doc. 2011-26812 of November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74122), make the following corrections:

1. On page 74303, in third column, end of the first paragraph, remove the last two sentences in the paragraph that begins at the bottom of the second column.

2. On page 74303, in third column, in the last paragraph, delete the following portion of the first sentence: “With the exception of the changed status indicators for HCPCS J1642 and J1644,” and capitalize the first letter of the new sentence.

3. On page 74304, in the third column of the table, in the data cells associated with J1642 and J1644, revise “K” to read “N”.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Act) requires that an agency adjust by regulation each maximum civil monetary penalty (CMP), or range of minimum and maximum CMPs, within that agency's jurisdiction by October 23, 1996, and adjust those penalty amounts once every four years thereafter, to reflect inflation. Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as amended by Section 31001(s)(1) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373, April 26, 1996. Congress recognized the important role that CMPs play in deterring violations of Federal laws, regulations, and orders and realized that inflation has diminished the impact of these penalties. In the Inflation Act, Congress found a way to counter the effect that inflation has had on the CMPs by having the agencies charged with enforcement responsibility administratively adjust the CMPs.

FRA is authorized as the delegate of the Secretary of Transportation to enforce the Federal railroad safety statutes, regulations, and orders, including the civil penalty provisions codified primarily at 49 U.S.C. chapter 213. See 49 U.S.C. 103 and 49 CFR 1.49; 49 U.S.C. chapter 201-213. FRA currently has safety regulations in 31 parts of the Code of Federal Regulations that contain provisions referencing the agency's authority to impose civil penalties if a person violates any requirement in the pertinent portion of a statute or the Code of Federal Regulations. In this final rule, FRA is amending each of those separate regulatory provisions and the corresponding footnotes in each Schedule of Civil Penalties appended to those regulations, in order to raise the aggravated maximum CMP to $105,000. Where applicable, FRA is amending the corresponding appendices to those regulatory provisions which outline FRA enforcement policy. See 49 CFR part 209, app. A; 49 CFR part 228, app. A. FRA is also amending several sections in the civil penalty schedules to reflect FRA's existing practice, which is to increase the guideline penalty amount from the statutory, inflation-adjusted minimum of $650 (or for some line items, $500) to $1,000 for an ordinary violation, and $2,000 for a willful violation, to allow room for downward negotiation during the settlement process. These select changes to the penalty guidelines do not modify the statutory minimum penalty (which remains at $650), but simply memorialize FRA's policy. See 49 CFR 228.9; 49 CFR 228.11; 49 CFR 228.17; 49 CFR 231.146.A; 49 CFR 240.215(b); 49 CFR 240.223(a), (b).

Further, FRA is revising language in 49 CFR part 209, appendix A, “Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws,” to better reflect the proper statutory history and authorities, particularly as the original version of the statement was written in 1988 and has not been fully updated to reflect the recodification of the Federal railroad safety statutes, effective July 5, 1994, Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, or the enactment on October 16, 2008, of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of 2008), Public Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848. These changes include the updated statutory citations that resulted from the 1994 recodification. Finally, FRA is adding the language “or orders” in two places within part 209, appendix A, “Penalty Schedules: Assessment of Maximum Penalties,” to reflect FRA's already existing policy of establishing civil penalty schedules and recommended civil penalty amounts applicable to violations of various orders issued by FRA (such as emergency orders under 49 U.S.C. 20104) when necessary to advance the agency's safety mission.

Under the Inflation Act, the inflation adjustment is to be calculated by increasing the maximum CMP, or the range of minimum and maximum CMPs, by the percentage that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment (here, June 2011) exceeds the CPI for the month of June of the last calendar year in which the amount of such penalty was last set or adjusted (here, June 2009 for the minimum CMP of $650, the ordinary maximum of $25,000, and the aggravated maximum CMP of $100,000). See 73 FR 79698 (Dec. 30, 2008), the final rule that made those CMP changes, effective March 2, 2009. The Inflation Act also specifies that the amount of the adjustment must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 for a penalty between $100 and $1,000, or to the nearest multiple of $5,000 for a penalty of more than $10,000 and less than or equal to $100,000. The first CMP adjustment may not exceed an increase of ten percent. FRA utilizes Bureau of Labor Statistics data to calculate adjusted CMP amounts. As will be described, FRA has adjusted its CMPs for inflation over the years since the 1996 amendment to the Inflation Act requiring such inflation adjustments.

In addition, FRA has revised its CMPs pursuant to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of 2008), Public Law 110-342, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848, enacted October 16, 2008, which raised the ordinary maximum civil penalty to $25,000 and raised the aggravated maximum civil penalty (for a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations that has created an imminent hazard of death or injury or caused death or injury) to $100,000. See sec. 302, which amended 49 U.S.C. 21301(a)(2), 21302(a)(2), and 21303(a)(2). The RSIA of 2008 did not amend the minimum civil penalty, which at the time of its enactment remained, pursuant to the Inflation Act, at an inflation-adjusted $550. 69 FR 30591 (May 28, 2004) and 69 FR 62817 (Oct. 28, 2004). (In 2004, FRA had determined, by applying the adjustment calculation using the June 2003 CPI, that the minimum CMP should be increased from $500 to $550, effective June 28, 2004, except for the amendments to part 222, which became effective December 18, 2004.)

Prior to the enactment of the RSIA of 2008, FRA had been evaluating the need to make inflation adjustments to its CMP amounts under the requirements of the Inflation Act; however, because the RSIA of 2008 increased the authorized amounts for ordinary maximum CMPs (from $16,000  1 to $25,000) and aggravated maximum CMPs (from $27,000  2 to $100,000), FRA amended the regulations, civil penalty schedules, and some related guidance in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect this change in statutory authority for ordinary maximum and aggravated maximum CMPs, which temporarily alleviated the need to perform inflation adjustment calculations for FRA's ordinary maximum and aggravated maximum CMPs. As discussed, although the RSIA of 2008 increased the authority for maximum penalties, it did not address the minimum CMP amount; therefore, FRA calculated whether an inflation adjustment was necessary with respect to the minimum CMP. Applying the inflation adjustment calculation, FRA determined that the $550 minimum CMP should be increased to $650. 73 FR 79698 (Dec. 30, 2008). In 2009, FRA also published a correcting amendment to correct an error relating to the total ordinary maximum civil monetary penalty amount in 49 CFR part 232, app. A. 74 FR 15387 (Apr. 6, 2009).

In 2012, four years after the 2008 adjustment, FRA has again evaluated whether inflation adjustments to its CMP amounts are necessary under the requirements of the Inflation Act. Applying the inflation adjustment calculation, FRA has determined that the minimum CMP of $650 and the ordinary maximum CMP of $25,000 should remain the same but that the aggravated maximum CMP should be increased to $105,000, as the following calculations show.

As required, this year, FRA reevaluated the minimum CMP and concluded that it should remain the same ($650), as the next calculations show. The June 2011 CPI of 676.162 divided by the CPI for June 2009 of 646.12 (since the last update was in 2009) equals an inflation factor of 1.046494387; $650 times 1.046494387 equals $680. The raw inflation adjustment amount of $30 is rounded to the nearest multiple of $100, which is $0. The inflation adjusted minimum penalty is $650 plus $0, or $650, and is applicable to all of the rail safety statutes, regulations, and orders. See appendix to this final rule. Thus, the FRA minimum CMP stays the same, at $650.

Applying the adjustment calculation using the June 2011 CPI, FRA has determined that the ordinary maximum CMP should remain the same ($25,000), as the following calculations show. The June 2011 CPI of 676.162 divided by the June 2009 CPI of 646.12 (since the last update was in 2009) equals an inflation factor of 1.046494387; $25,000 times 1.046494387 equals $26,162, or a raw inflation adjustment amount of $1,162, which is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, which is $0. See appendix to this final rule. Therefore, the ordinary maximum CMP should remain at $25,000.

FRA also reevaluated the CMP for an aggravated violation and determined that it should be increased to $105,000, as the following calculations show. The June 2011 CPI of 676.162 divided by the CPI for June 2009 of 646.12 (since the last update was in 2009) equals an inflation factor of 1.046494387; $100,000 times 1.046494387 equals $104,649. The raw inflation adjustment amount of $4,649 is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, which is $5,000. The inflation-adjusted aggravated maximum penalty is $100,000 plus $5,000 (the rounded raw inflation adjustment amount), or $105,000, and is applicable to all of the rail safety statutes, regulations, and orders. See appendix to this final rule. The aggravated maximum CMP has been adjusted previously according to the Inflation Act. However, the RSIA of 2008 significantly raised the aggravated maximum penalty from $27,000 to $100,000. Public Law 110-342, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848. In this way, the RSIA of 2008 “reset” the aggravated maximum penalty, and this review may be considered the first one conducted under the Inflation Act of the new, statutory aggravated maximum CMP. Thus, the ten-percent cap for first time adjustments does apply, and the new maximum penalty amount must not exceed $110,000. However, the increase due to inflation rounds to $5,000, and therefore the ten-percent cap does not constrain the increase. This new FRA aggravated maximum penalty will apply to violations that occur on or after June 25, 2012.

FRA is proceeding to a final rule without providing a notice of proposed rulemaking or an opportunity for public comment. Public comment is unnecessary because FRA is not exercising discretion in a way that could be informed by public comment. As such, notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Likewise, the adjustments required by the Inflation Act are ministerial acts over which FRA has no discretion, making public comment unnecessary. FRA is issuing these amendments as a final rule applicable to all future rail safety civil penalty cases under its authority to cite for violations that occur on or after the effective date of this final rule.

This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979. It is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034) because it is limited to a ministerial act on which the agency has no discretion. The economic impact of the final rule is minimal to the extent that preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this rule will apply to railroads and others that are considered small entities, there is no economic impact on any person who complies with the Federal railroad safety laws and the regulations and orders issued under those laws.

This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, preparation of a Federalism assessment is not warranted.

There are no new information collection requirements in this final rule.

Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that “before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $140,800,000 or more in any one year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement” detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The final rule issued today will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $140,800,000 or more in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector, and thus preparation of a statement is not required.

There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.

According to definitions set forth in Executive Order 13211, there will be no significant energy action as a result of the issuance of this final rule.

In consideration of the foregoing, parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, and 244, of subtitle B, chapter II of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: