On May 11, 2011, the Agencies published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking that would establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants for which one of the Agencies is the prudential regulator, as required under sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). 1 Sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act add a new section 4s to the Commodity Exchange Act and a new section 15F to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, respectively, which require the registration and regulation of swap dealers and major swap participants and security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (collectively, swap entities). For certain types of swap entities that are prudentially regulated by one of the Agencies, sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act require the Agencies to adopt rules jointly for swap entities under their respective jurisdictions imposing: (i) Capital requirements and (ii) initial and variation margin requirements on all non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps. 2

The original comment period to the Proposed Margin Rule closed on June 24, 2011. 3 In order to allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposed rule and prepare their comments, the Agencies extended the comment period until July 11, 2011. 4 In the Proposed Margin Rule, the Agencies noted that applying the proposed margin requirements to transactions involving foreign swap entities or foreign counterparties could subject those transactions to multiple, and potentially conflicting, margin requirements established by U.S. and foreign regulators and could raise questions of competitive equality among U.S. and foreign firms. Margin standards that are developed and harmonized on an international basis could help address those issues.

In October 2011, the BCBS and IOSCO established a Working Group on Margin Requirements to develop harmonized international margin standards for non-cleared swaps. On July 6, 2012, BCBS and IOSCO published a Consultative Document entitled “Margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives” (Consultative Document) that outlines possible margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives. 5 The Consultative Document addresses a number of topics, including: (i) The instruments that would be subject to margin requirements; (ii) the market participants that would be subject to margin requirements; (iii) initial margin and variation margin methodology; (iv) eligible collateral; (v) treatment of provided margin; (vi) treatment of inter-affiliate transactions; and (vii) treatment of cross-border transactions.

BCBS and IOSCO are requesting comment on the initial proposals set forth in the Consultative Document by September 28, 2012. It is expected that, after reviewing and evaluating any comments received, the BCBS and IOSCO will issue final policy recommendations for margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives. As part of the international efforts to implement consistent global standards for non-centrally-cleared derivatives, the Agencies intend to consider the final policy recommendations set forth by the BCBS and IOSCO when adopting final U.S. rules for margin for non-cleared swaps.

Accordingly, the Agencies believe it is appropriate to reopen the comment period for the Proposed Margin Rule in order to give interested persons additional time to analyze the Proposed Margin Rule in light of the Consultative Document and an opportunity to comment on the Consultative Document and Proposed Margin Rule concurrently. 6

Therefore, the Agencies are reopening the comment period until November 26, 2012, for all aspects of the Proposed Margin Rule.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1003; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-064-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-07, dated January 27, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletins 84-26-08, Revision A, dated May 12, 2011; 84-26-09, Revision A, dated May 12, 2011; and 84-26-12, Revision A, dated December 13, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 84 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 63 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 would cost about $5,700 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 proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $928,620, or $11,055 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1052; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

On February 11, 2000, we issued AD 2000-04-01, amendment 39-11583 (65 FR 8649, February 22, 2000), for certain Cessna Aircraft Company Models 172R, 172S, 182S, 206H, and T206H airplanes. That AD requires inspection of the engine oil pressure switch to determine if the engine oil pressure switch is part-number (P/N) 77041 or P/N 83278 and replacement of any P/N 77041 engine oil pressure switch with a P/N 83278 engine oil pressure switch. That AD resulted from reports of failure of the engine oil pressure switch diaphragm. We issued that AD to prevent loss of engine oil through the failure of the engine oil pressure switch diaphragm, which could result in partial or complete loss of engine power.

Since we issued AD 2000-04-01, amendment 39-11583 (65 FR 8649, February 22, 2000), we have received new reports of internal failure of the engine oil pressure switch, which could result in complete loss of engine oil with consequent partial or complete loss of engine power or fire.

We reviewed Cessna Service Bulletin 07-79-01, dated January 29, 2007. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the engine oil pressure switch.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2000-04-01, amendment 39-11583 (65 FR 8649, February 22, 2000). This proposed AD would increase the applicability statement of the existing AD and require an inspection of the engine oil pressure switch with replacement of the engine oil pressure switch when it reaches its life limit of 3,000 hours time-in-service. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Applicability in this proposed AD has been expanded to include additional airplane serial numbers.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6,155 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed 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.

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1034; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-051-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

On October 26, 2010, we issued AD 2010-23-07, Amendment 39-16496 (75 FR 68181, November 5, 2010; corrected December 17, 2010 (75 FR 78883)). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0164, dated August 5, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-55A1038, dated April 22, 2009.

• Airbus AOT A320-55A1039, dated November 4, 2009.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1035, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2010.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1036, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2010.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1037, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2010.

• Airbus Technical Disposition TD/K4/S2/27051/2009, Issue B, dated February 25, 2009.

• Airbus Technical Disposition TD/K4/S2/27086/2009, Issue E, dated September 17, 2009.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD requires the permanent restoration of vacuum loss holes and does not allow the temporary restoration with self-adhesive patches, or temporary restoration with resin that is specified in the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 721 products of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1032; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-079-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0068, dated April 25, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems has issued Service Bulletin 2000-53-057, dated November 22, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Saab Service Bulletin 2000-53-057, dated November 22, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions, but this proposed AD would require doing the repair using a method that we approve.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,400, or $340 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1033; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-266-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

On March 17, 2005, we issued AD 2005-07-04, Amendment 39-14028 (70 FR 16104, March 30, 2005). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. Since we issued AD 2005-07-04, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0192 (corrected), dated October 11, 2010; and EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0193 (corrected), dated October 11, 2010; (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2012-0159] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2012-0159] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a request for a public meeting by November 13, 2012 using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES . Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds. The 1976 Puget Sound Area Anchorages rulemaking defined 11 general and explosive anchorages within greater Puget Sound area. These areas are described using geographic points of land and bearings and ranges as the boundaries. This rule proposes to update existing anchorages to describe areas using points of latitude and longitude, which, with the advent of Global Positioning System (GPS), is much more practical and accurate for the mariner. Additionally, changes to shore side infrastructure, safety and security zones, and environmentally sensitive areas have made some of the anchorage boundaries impractical, such that the listed boundaries no longer reflect the actual anchorages as used today. This rule addresses these changes by reducing the size of specified anchorages.

This proposed rule would change the descriptions of the following anchorages to points of latitude and longitude, but does not change their actual area and location:

Holmes Harbor General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters of Holmes Harbor lying south of a line between latitude 48°05′50″ N, longitude 122°31′24″ W; thence 311°T to latitude 48°07′03″ N, longitude 122°33′31″ W.

Thorndike Bay Emergency Explosives Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters in a quadrilateral area bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 47°47′59″ N, longitude 122°43′30″ W; thence 270°T to latitude 47°47′59″ N, longitude 122°44′30″ W; thence 180°T to latitude 47°47′30″ N, longitude 122°44′30″ W; thence 090°T to latitude 47°47′30″ N, longitude 122°43′30″ W, thence 000°T to the point of origin.

Orchard Point General Anchorage. This rule would rename Orchard Point General Anchorage to the more commonly used name of Yukon Harbor General Anchorage. Yukon Harbor General Anchorage coordinates would be revised to read: All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°33′54.66″ N, longitude 122°31′54.68″ W; thence 106°T to latitude 47°33′23″ N, longitude 122°29′05″ W; thence 180°T to latitude 47°32′39.5″ N, longitude 122°29′05″ W; thence south along the eastern shoreline of Blake Island to latitude 47°31′48″ N, longitude 122°29′21″ W; thence 250°T to latitude 47°31′20.5″ N, longitude 122°31′10″ W; thence west and north along the Kitsap Peninsula shoreline to the point of origin.

In addition, we propose to update the following anchorages' datum from NAD 27 to NAD 83: Cherry Point General Anchorage, Bellingham Bay General and Explosives Anchorages, Port Townsend Explosives Anchorages, and Commencement Bay General Anchorage. The datum transposition was done using the National Geodetic Survey's NADCON Program Version 2.11 found at www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/nadcon.prl.

Finally, the following anchorage areas would remain unchanged: Anacortes General Anchorages, Cap Sante Tug and Barge General Anchorage, and Hat Island Tug and Barge General Anchorage.

This proposed rule would reduce the size of the following anchorages.

Port Gardner General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters in a quadrilateral area bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 47°58′57″ N, longitude 122°14′05″ W; thence 302°T to latitude 47°59′21.5″ N, longitude 122°15′02″ W; thence 229°T to latitude 47°58′57″ N, longitude 122°15′44″ W; thence 122°T to latitude 47°58′32.5″ N, longitude 122°14′47″ W; thence 048°T to point of origin. Modification would eliminate the easternmost portion of the existing anchorage area so as not to encroach on Naval Station Everett Pier Bravo and security barrier and restricted area defined in 33 CFR 334.1215, approaches to Snohomish River channel and shoal area off the southern tip of Jetty Island.

Smith Cove West General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°38′20.44″ N, longitude 122°24′48.56″ W; thence 207°T to latitude 47°37′51.6″ N, longitude 122°25′10.5″ W; thence 124°T to latitude 47°36′56.2″ N, longitude 122°23′07″ W; thence 000°T to latitude 47°37′59.5″ N, longitude 122°23′07″ W; thence northwest along the shoreline to the point of origin. Modification would align the eastern boundary of the anchorage with the Pier 91 Safety and Security zone defined in 33 CFR 165.1324.

Smith Cove East General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°37′36.2″ N, longitude 122°22′43″ W; thence 180°T to latitude 47°36′56.2″ N, longitude 122°22′43″ W; thence 090°T to latitude 47°36′56.2″ N, longitude 122°21′22.5″ W, thence northwest along the shoreline to the beginning. Modification would align the western boundary of the anchorage with the Pier 91 Safety and Security zone defined in 33 CFR 165.1324.

Elliott Bay East General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°35′25.8″ N, longitude 122°20′45.5″ W; thence 000°T to latitude 47°35′55.85″ N, longitude 122°20′45.5″ W; thence 270°T to latitude 47°35′55.85″ N, longitude 122°21′30″ W; thence 180°T to latitude 47°35′19.2″ N, longitude 122°21′30″ W; thence east along the shoreline to the point of origin. Modification would correct positions as a result of chart datum changes.

Elliott Bay West General Anchorage. Coordinates would be revised to read: All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°35′30″ N, longitude 122°21′41″ W, thence 000°T to latitude 47°35′45.5″ N, longitude 122°21′41″ W; thence 336°T to latitude 47°35′55.85″ N, longitude 122°21′48.5″ W; thence 270°T to latitude 47°35′55.85″ N, longitude 122°23′16.46″ W, thence 180°T to Duwamish Head thence southeast following the shoreline to latitude 47°35′30″ N, longitude 122°22′54.5″ W; thence 090°T to the point of origin. Modification would eliminate the southern portion of the anchorage area to avoid the regulated navigation area protecting the Pacific Sound Resources sediment cap defined in 33 CFR 165.1336.

Freshwater Bay Emergency Explosive Anchorage. This proposed rule would rename the anchorage to Freshwater Bay Emergency Anchorage to reflect its actual and intended use. Freshwater Bay is located approximately 10 miles west of Port Angeles in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The name change from “Emergency Explosive Anchorage” to “Emergency Anchorage” would more accurately reflect the actual and intended use of this anchorage. Freshwater Bay has been used for many years as a general emergency anchorage for emergencies including explosives and other emergencies requiring vessels to be anchored in a safe area away from infrastructure and densely populated areas. The change in name of Freshwater Bay Emergency Anchorage is deemed to be administrative in nature because the anchorage's usage is exceptionally rare and not expected to change at all as a result of this rulemaking. Anchorage logs show that only two vessels have used the anchorage in the past 10 years. Coordinates would be revised to read: all waters of Freshwater Bay and adjacent waters shoreward of a line beginning at Observatory Point, latitude 48°09′03″ N, longitude 123°38′12″ W; thence 000°T to latitude 48°09′36″ N, longitude 123°38′12″ W; thence 090°T to latitude 48°09′36″ N, longitude 123°33′27″ W; thence 180°T ending at Angeles Point, latitude 48°09′00″ N, longitude 123°33′27″ W. This anchorage has been used for many years as a general emergency anchorage, for emergency situations requiring vessels to be anchored in a safe place away from infrastructure and densely populated areas, including situations involving explosives. Using the term “Emergency Anchorage” reflects that the anchorage has been used and may be used for a range of emergency situations, including not only explosives, equipment failures, cargo securing, etc. Vessels requiring a customs inspection will not be allowed to anchor in this area.

The proposed rule would rename 33 CFR 110.230 to “Anchorages, Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA” to better describe the area which is incorporated by this regulation. Additionally, the proposed rule would incorporate into § 110.230 the non-anchorage area contained in 33 CFR 110.229, and update the coordinates to datum NAD 1983. Having two separate regulations for the same COTP zone creates unnecessary redundancy and confusion that can be eliminated by incorporating all anchorages into one regulation.

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

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We do not expect this proposed rule to have significant impact because it is administrative in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterway.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and adjoining waters. Because the contemplated changes would be minimal in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterway, the proposed rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves administrative changes to an anchorage regulation that either do not change the size of existing anchorage areas, or make some anchorage areas smaller.

We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA promulgated the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM 2.5 .

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and, by January 2001, established a complete set of air quality monitors. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-03.

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective date (April 5, 2005) at 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM 2.5 nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within 20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined population of approximately 88 million. The Huntington Area which is the subject of this rulemaking was included in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The West Virginia portion of the Huntington Area consists of Cabell and Wayne Counties and the Graham Tax District in Mason County.

On September 7, 2011 (76 FR 55542), EPA determined that West Virginia had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Huntington Area. That determination was based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010 three-year period that showed the area attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard. The September 7, 2011 determination suspended the requirements for West Virginia to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. This proposed approval is limited to the emissions inventory for the Huntington Area. Separate action will be taken on the remainder of West Virginia's SIP submittal.

The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by WVDEP on May 28, 2009 for the Huntington Area includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM 2.5 , coarse particles (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). EPA has reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year emissions inventory submitted by WVDEP. The year 2002 was selected by WVDEP as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well as the emissions inventory for the Huntington Area can be found in Appendices C and D of the May 28, 2009 SIP submittal.

Table 1, below, provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 and SO 2 for the West Virginia portion of the Huntington Area submittal.

The CAA section 172(c)(3) 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 (CERR) for all source categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). The review and evaluation of the methods used for the emissions inventory submitted by West Virginia are found in the Technical Support Document dated August 12, 2010, available online at www.regulations.gov , Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0119. EPA finds that the process used to develop this emissions inventory for the Huntington Area is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for emission inventories.

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on May 28, 2009 for the Huntington Area. We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the PM 2.5 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the West Virginia SIP for the Huntington Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA promulgated the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM 2.5 .

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and, by January 2001, established a complete set of air quality monitors. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-03.

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective date (April 5, 2005) at 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM 2.5 nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within 20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined population of approximately 88 million. The Parkersburg Area, which is the subject of this rulemaking, was included in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The West Virginia portion of the Parkersburg Area consists of Wood County and the Grant Tax District of Pleasants County.

On November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), EPA determined that West Virginia had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Parkersburg Area. That determination was based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2006-2008 three-year period that showed the area attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard. The November 20, 2009 determination suspended the requirements for West Virginia to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. This proposed approval is limited to the emissions inventory for the Parkersburg Area. Separate action will be taken on the remainder of West Virginia's SIP submittal.

The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by WVDEP on September 9, 2008 for the Parkersburg Area includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM 2.5 , coarse particles (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). EPA has reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year emissions inventory submitted by WVDEP. The year 2002 was selected by WVDEP as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well as the emissions inventory for the Parkersburg Area can be found in Appendices C and D of the September 9, 2008 SIP submittal.

Table 1, below, provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 and SO 2 for the West Virginia portion of the Parkersburg Area submittal.

The CAA section 172(c)(3) 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 (CERR) for all source categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). The review and evaluation of the methods used for the emissions inventory submitted by West Virginia are found in the Technical Support Document dated June 16, 2010, available online at www.regulations.gov , Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0077. EPA finds that the process used to develop this emissions inventory for the Parkersburg Area is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for emission inventories.

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on September 9, 2008 for the Parkersburg Area. We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the PM 2.5 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the West Virginia SIP for the Parkersburg Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

In accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7509(c)(1), and 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to determine that the Philadelphia Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The proposal is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 monitoring periods and upon data available to date for 2012, which show that the Philadelphia Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA received requests from the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey  1 for the determination of attainment for the Philadelphia area for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (hereby “the 2006 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS”) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006). The revised 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard (hereafter “the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS”) became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to PM 2.5 at this level.

Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA's 2006 revisions to the PM 2.5 NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the 2006 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS to EPA for further proceedings. The 2006 24-hour primary and secondary PM 2.5 NAAQS were not affected by the remand and remain in effect.

The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 13, 2009, EPA published designations for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), which became effective on December 14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated the Philadelphia Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Philadelphia Area is comprised of New Castle County in Delaware; Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey; and Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania), 40 CFR 81.331 (New Jersey), and 40 CFR 81.308 (Delaware). This proposed action only addresses the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and has no effect on control measures or air quality in the area.

On March 29, 2007, EPA issued a detailed implementation rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, to assist states and tribes with the development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (the “2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule”) (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007). EPA believes that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule provides effective and appropriate guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory requirements that states should address in their SIPs, and that such interpretation is relevant to the statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. However, in light of new information that has become available since the issuance of the 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA published on March 2, 2012, the memorandum “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (the “2006 24-hour PM 2.5 Implementation Guidance”). 2 This memorandum provides additional guidance to assist states with development of their SIPs for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

In general, areas violating the NAAQS should meet the basic CAA requirements set forth in section 172. The 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 nonattainment designations triggered the CAA's requirements under section 172(c), which requires the submission of an attainment plan for each designated nonattainment area. The 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule specifies that states must submit attainment plans for their nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than three years from the effective date of designation. Attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS must be submitted by December 14, 2012. The 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule also outlines the SIP requirements for the attainment plan, which include among other things, the submission of an attainment demonstration showing the air quality improvements expected to result from national and local control measures, an analysis of RACM, including all RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures. In the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 Implementation Guidance, EPA recommends that states follow a similar approach for each one of these SIP requirements when demonstrating attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Under section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, an area's attainment date would be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was designated nonattainment, except that the Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment. Because the designation of nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 14, 2009, the presumptive five-year attainment date for many areas would be no later than December 14, 2014. The 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS relies on evaluating three full calendar years of air quality data to calculate the 24-hour design value for the area. To determine attainment, EPA commonly uses the three most recent calendar years of complete air quality data that are available for the nonattainment area.

Today's proposed rulemaking action determines that the Philadelphia Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, based on quality assured data from 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 monitoring periods. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.13(c), the 2006 24-hour primary and secondary PM 2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 . Data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining whether areas have met the PM 2.5 NAAQS, including requirements for data completeness, are listed in appendix N of 40 CFR part 50.

EPA previously determined that the PM 2.5 monitoring network for the Philadelphia Area is adequate. EPA found that the number of monitors in the Area meets the minimum regulatory requirements given in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7, and that the monitoring network in place is in accordance with the States' most recent annual monitoring network plans approved by EPA, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. 3 During the periods of 2008-2010 and 2009-2011, the Philadelphia Area had in place a total of 16 PM 2.5 monitoring sites, whose data was eligible for comparison to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

EPA has reviewed the quality-assured, quality-controlled, certified ambient air monitoring data recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database for PM 2.5 for the Philadelphia Area during monitoring periods 2008-2010 and 2009-2011, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50. Preliminary PM 2.5 data for 2012, which is not yet quality-assured and quality-controlled, was also reviewed. The 24-hour design values for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (i.e., the 3-year average of the 98th percentile values of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations) for the Philadelphia Area for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 monitoring periods are provided in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Table 3 shows the preliminary PM 2.5 monitoring data available to date for 2012. The PM 2.5 98th percentile values and 24-hour design values for the Philadelphia Area can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

The 24-hour design value determined for the Philadelphia Area is the highest 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile measured at all the monitors in the Area during this time, which meets the criteria to be used for comparison to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Only valid and complete air quality data can be used for comparison to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. A year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data. However, years are considered valid, notwithstanding quarters with less than complete data, if the resulting annual 98th percentile value or resulting 24-hour standard design value is greater than the level of the standard.

EPA addresses missing data from monitors not meeting the completeness requirement by applying three different procedures: Collocated substitution test, maximum quarter substitution test (“maximum quarter test”), and EPA's statistical procedure. In the collocated substitution test, data from a collocated monitor at the site are substituted for the missing data. In the maximum quarter test, maximum recorded values are substituted for the missing data. For each substitution test, a 24-hour design value is calculated using the substituted data and then compared to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See EPA's April 1999 “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS.”  4 EPA's statistical procedure is used when a monitor does not pass both of these two substitution tests or the incomplete monitor is not collocated. This procedure is used to determine if the incomplete monitor would have attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS had it been operated during this time by computing a “diagnostic” 24-hour design value.

While most of the PM 2.5 monitoring data satisfy the data completeness requirement, several monitors in the Philadelphia Area had incomplete 24-hour design values during the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 periods, as indicated in Tables 1 and 2. EPA has applied the statistical procedure to address the missing data of two monitors in the Philadelphia Area: Site 34-007-0003 (Camden monitor) in Camden County, New Jersey and site 42-029-0100 (New Garden monitor) in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Diagnostic 24-hour design values were determined for the Camden monitor for 2008-2010 and for the New Garden monitor for both 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 periods. The diagnostic 24-hour design values for the New Garden and Camden monitors in the Philadelphia Area were below the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS level of 35 μg/m 3 during both 2008-2010 and 2009-2011. The statistical method used to compute diagnostic design values was successfully used previously for the Philadelphia Area determination of attainment for the annual 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( see 77 FR 3223 and 77 FR 28782). Additional details on the statistical method can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0371.

As shown in Table 1, the Camden Monitor at site 34-007-0003, located in Camden County, was the highest reading monitor during 2008-2010. However, the 24-hour design value from this site reflects incomplete data during most of the 2008-2010 monitoring period due to the monitor's shutdown in September 2008. This monitor only collected data for 3 out of 12 quarters. The last valid 24-hour design value at site 34-007-0003 was 35 µg/m 3 in 2006-2008, prior to its shutdown. After EPA filled in the missing data using its statistical procedure, an attaining 24-hour design value for the Camden monitor of 28 μg/m 3 was computed, which is below the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m 3 . The remaining PM 2.5 monitors in the Philadelphia area showed concentrations below the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS during the 2008-2010 monitoring period. As indicated in Table 2, all monitors measured concentrations averaging below the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3 during 2009-2011. The 24-hour design value for 2009-2011 for the Philadelphia Area is 33 μg/m 3 based on monitoring data collected by the New Garden monitor at site 42-029-0100 in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

EPA's review of quality-assured, quality-controlled, certified ambient air monitoring data collected in the Philadelphia Area during 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 indicates that the Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary PM 2.5 data available to date for 2012 is consistent with continued attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Philadelphia Area. Additional information about the monitoring network and air quality data used in this determination can be found in the TSD for this action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0371.

If EPA's proposed determination of attainment based on quality-assured data during 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 is made final, the requirements for the Philadelphia Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for as long as the Philadelphia Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Notably, as described below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation of the Philadelphia Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. If this proposed determination is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register , that the Area has violated the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the specific requirements would no longer exist for the Philadelphia Area, and the Area would thereafter have to address the applicable requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

Finalizing this proposed determination would not constitute a redesignation of the Philadelphia Area to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing this determination would not involve approving a maintenance plan for the Philadelphia Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor would it involve finding that the Area has met all other requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that the attainment be due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 5 Even if EPA finalizes the proposed action, the designation status of the Philadelphia Area would remain nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the Philadelphia Area.

The action described is a proposed determination regarding the Philadelphia Area's attainment only with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Today's action does not address the 1997 annual or 24-hour PM 2.5 standards. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA promulgated the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM 2.5 .

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and, by January 2001, established a complete set of air quality monitors. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-03.

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective date (April 5, 2005) at 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM 2.5 nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within 20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined population of approximately 88 million. The Charleston Area, which is the subject of this rulemaking, was included in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Charleston Area consists of Kanawha and Putnam Counties in West Virginia.

On October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62640), EPA determined that West Virginia had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Charleston Area. That determination was based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 three-year period that showed the area attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard. The October 11, 2011 determination suspended the requirements for West Virginia to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. This proposed approval is limited to the emissions inventory for the Charleston Area. Separate action will be taken on the remainder of West Virginia's SIP submittal.

The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by WVDEP on November 4, 2009 for the Charleston Area includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM 2.5 , coarse particles (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). EPA has reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year emissions inventory submitted by WVDEP. The year 2002 was selected by WVDEP as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well as the emissions inventory for the Charleston Area can be found in Appendices C and D of the November 4, 2009 SIP submittal.

Table 1, below, provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 and SO 2 for the Charleston Area submittal.

The CAA section 172(c)(3) 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 (CERR) for all source categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). The review and evaluation of the methods used for the emissions inventory submitted by West Virginia are found in the Technical Support Document dated August 12, 2010, available online at www.regulations.gov , Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0422. EPA finds that the process used to develop this emissions inventory for the Charleston Area is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for emission inventories.

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on November 4, 2009 for the Charleston Area. We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the PM 2.5 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the West Virginia SIP for the Charleston Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Table of Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act D. Public Meeting II. Abbreviations III. Background IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule V. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0861), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and insert “USCG-2012-0861” in the “Search” box. Click on “Submit a Comment” in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert “USCG-2012-0861” in the “Search” box and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES . In your request, please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. et seq., implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL Protocol), which includes MARPOL Annex VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. See 33 U.S.C. 1901(a)(4) and (5). APPS directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of the MARPOL Protocol and it directs the Secretary to designate those persons authorized to issue MARPOL Protocol certificates on behalf of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. 1903(c) and 1904. This authority was delegated to the Coast Guard. See Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. As required by APPS, the Coast Guard has consulted with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding this proposed rule.

On July 15, 2011, in resolution MEPC.203(62), the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. Those amendments, which were accepted July 1, 2012, and come into force January 1, 2013, contain energy efficiency provisions for new and existing ships. These amended regulations call for the issuance of an International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificate to document compliance with Annex VI's new Chapter 4, Regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships. See amended Annex VI Regulations 5.4 and 6.4. Since the mid-1990s, under authority of 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3306, 3316, and 3703, and regulations in 46 CFR part 8—Vessel Inspection Alternatives, the Coast Guard has authorized recognized classification societies to issue international certificates to vessels. The Coast Guard regularly adds to the list, in 33 CFR 8.320(b), of international certificates that classification societies may apply to issue to vessels on the Coast Guard's behalf—including recent additions of the MARPOL 73/78 International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate and the International Anti-Fouling System Certificate. See, respectively, 74 FR 21554, May 8, 2009; and 76 FR 76896, Dec. 9, 2011. The United States currently recognizes seven classification societies for purposes of issuing international certificates: The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS, United States); Det Norske Veritas (DNV, Norway); Lloyd's Register (LR, Great Britain); Germanischer Lloyd (GL, Germany); Bureau Veritas (BV, France); RINA S.p.A. (RINA, Italy), and ClassNK (NKK, Japan).

Recognized classification societies assist the Coast Guard and help to ensure that U.S.-flagged ships that qualify for an international certificate are able to obtain it promptly. As we stated in 1996, to avoid duplication of effort between the Coast Guard and classification societies that results in extra costs to U.S. vessel owners, it is best to take full advantage of inspections done by classification societies:

Starting January 2013, U.S.-flagged ships that are 400 gross tonnage or more as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14302, Convention Measurement System, (hereafter 400 GT ITC or more) may be subject to detention or delay in foreign ports if they do not have an IEE certificate to document compliance with Annex VI. See amended Annex VI Regulation 19.

Section 8.320 of 46 CFR allows the Coast Guard to delegate issuance of an international convention certificate to a recognized classification society only if the certificate is listed in § 8.320(b). The IEE Certificate is not currently listed in § 8.320(b).

Our proposed amendment to 46 CFR 8.320(b) would add the International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificate to the list of certificates that may be issued by a recognized classification society on behalf of the Coast Guard. This proposed change would initiate the process that would allow recognized classification societies to issue IEE Certificates on behalf of the Coast Guard. Any recognized classification society that wishes to issue IEE Certificates on the Coast Guard's behalf would be required to request a delegation of authority from the Coast Guard pursuant to the procedures in 46 CFR part 8. See 46 CFR 8.230 for criteria that must be met to become a recognized classification society. In response, the Coast Guard would evaluate the application, and review the applicant's relevant class rules and classification society procedures, before deciding whether to issue a delegation of authority to a recognized classification society. As noted above, we propose this amendment to § 8.320(b) to allow the Coast Guard to enlist the assistance of recognized classification societies to ensure that U.S.-flagged ships that are 400 GT ITC or more that engage in one or more voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other contracting parties to the MARPOL Protocol will be able to promptly obtain an IEE certificate.

Also, the Presidential Memorandum of May 20, 2009 titled “Preemption,” states that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” The memorandum also required agencies to include preemption provisions in the codified regulations when regulatory preambles discussed its intention to preempt State law through the regulation. Furthermore, it directed that these preemption provisions must be justified under the legal principles governing preemption, including those outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13132 on Federalism. Consistent with this May 2009 Presidential Memorandum, EO 13132, and our Federalism discussion below, we have proposed inserting a specific statement regarding preemption in the purpose section, § 8.300, of Part 8's subpart C, International Convention Certificate Issuance, and renaming that section heading “Purpose and Preemption.”

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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 proposed rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A draft regulatory assessment follows:

Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1903, 1904, and 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3306, 3316, and 3703, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR 8.320, to enable the Coast Guard to delegate the activity of issuing IEE Certificates to a recognized classification society which would act on behalf of the Coast Guard. The intent of this proposed rule is only to allow for the delegation of IEE Certification to recognized class societies and thus create options for industry in obtaining these certificates; it does not impose mandatory actions on the U.S. maritime industry.

Although requesting the delegation of authority to conduct IEE surveys, inspections, and certifications is voluntary, classification societies may incur minor costs associated with this process. The Coast Guard may incur costs associated with the evaluation of these requests and the issuance of delegations of authority to recognized classification societies.

The Coast Guard estimates that this proposed rule would potentially affect seven classification societies which may request a delegation of authority to issue IEE Certificates. The Coast Guard used an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved collection of information (1625-0041) to estimate the costs and burden.

The Coast Guard estimates that it will take classification society employees about 5.25 hours to review the rulemaking requirements and prepare the delegation request, at an average one-time cost of $428.75 per classification society (3.5 hours at $112 per hour  1 for a director and 1.75 hours at $21 per hour for an administrative assistant). The total one-time cost for all seven classification societies is estimated to be $3,000 (rounded).

In addition, the Coast Guard estimates that it will incur a one-time cost to review and approve the requests for delegation. Based on the OMB-approved collections of information discussed above, the Coast Guard estimates that it will take about 5 hours to review, approve, and issue an order to delegate authority, at an average cost of $360 per event (3.5 hours for reviewing/approving and 1.5 hours for issuing at $72 per hour for a lieutenant (O-3)). The Coast Guard estimates a total one-time Government cost of $2,500 (rounded) based on OMB-approved collection of information estimates.

The Coast Guard estimates the total one-time cost of this proposed rule to be approximately $5,500 (non-discounted) for classification societies and the Government combined.

This proposed rule may result in several benefits to the U.S. maritime industry. First, it may result in a reduction of potential wait time for IEE Certificates. In the absence of delegation of authority to classification societies, vessel owners and operators may experience delays while the Coast Guard processes and issues IEE Certificates. Combined with the Coast Guard's other activities and responsibilities, such a process may result in an unnecessary and burdensome wait for vessels. The Coast Guard also might have to redirect resources that could be used for other missions, resulting in a less efficient use of Government resources. Finally, this proposed rule may mitigate potential consequences to U.S.-flagged vessels due to non-compliance with the Convention, including costly vessel detentions in foreign ports.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule will, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

Affected classification societies are classified under one of the following North American Industry Classification System codes for water transportation: 488330—Navigational Services to Shipping, 488390—Other Support Activities for Water Transportation, or 541611—Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services.

The only predominate U.S. classification society is the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). ABS is a privately owned non-profit organization that is dominant in its field (Source: 2011 Hoovers, http://www.hoovers.com/company/American Bureau of Shipping Inc/rfsksji-1.html ). Based on publicly available information, ABS has more than 3,000 employees and annual revenues of more than $800 million. 2 We do not consider ABS to be a small entity using the Small Business Act definitions of a small entity.

The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As described in section V.A. of this preamble, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” the anticipated cost of this proposed rule, per class society, would be less than $500. This proposed rule is not mandatory, and classification societies, regardless of size, would choose to participate only if the benefits are greater than the costs.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Wayne Lundy, Systems Engineering Division, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1379 or email Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) because the Coast Guard expects that the number of applications would be fewer than 10 in any given year.

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

As noted above, APPS implements the MARPOL Protocol. APPS also directs the Secretary to “designate those persons authorized to issue on behalf of the United States the certificates required by the MARPOL Protocol.” 33 U.S.C. 1904. By enacting this specific provision, it was the intent of Congress to give the Coast Guard, as delegated by the Secretary, the exclusive authority to regulate within this field. Therefore, we have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. This proposed rule involves the delegation of authority, the inspection and documentation of vessels, and congressionally-mandated regulations designed to improve or protect the environment.

This action falls under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(b) and (d), of the Instruction, and under section 6(b) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002). We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR part 8 as follows: