Federal Register Vol. 80, No.100,

On March 9, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove Class E airspace at Franklin Wilkins Airport, Lexington, TN., as the airport has been abandoned, and controlled airspace no longer necessary (80 FR 12354).

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Franklin Wilkins Airport. The airport has been abandoned, and controlled airspace no longer necessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes controlled airspace at Franklin Wilkins Airport, Lexington, TN.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Adoption of the Amendment:

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On March 20, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D and Class E airspace at North Central West Virginia Airport, Clarksburg, WV., (80 FR 14878). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Also, the airport coordinates are further adjusted from the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at North Central West Virginia Airport, formerly known as Benedum Airport. A segment of the airspace is amended from a 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles southwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within an 8.9-mile radius of the airport. Decommissioning of the Clarksburg VOR/DME and cancellation of the VOR approaches has made this action necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. The airport name is changed from Benedum Airport to North Central West Virginia Airport in the Class D and E airspace areas listed above.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at North Central West Virginia Airport, Clarksburg, WV.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On March 9, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Weedon Field Airport, Eufaula, AL. (80 FR 12359). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Weedon Field.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Eufaula VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Weedon Field Airport, Eufaula, AL.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On May 1, 2015, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Class D airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL. (80 FR24793). After publication, the FAA found that the title was incorrectly typed as Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Jupiter, FL, instead of Amendment of Class D Airspace, Jupiter, FL. This action makes the correction.

The Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 9, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No. FAA-2015-0794, amending Class D airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL, as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015, (80 FR 24793), FR Doc. 2015-09881, is corrected as follows: On page 24793, column 3, line 39, remove, “Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jupiter, FL”, and add in its place, “Amendment of Class D Airspace, Jupiter, FL.

On September 25, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the designated altitudes of restricted area R-4501B to establish a single ceiling altitude, add exclusions to the boundaries of R-4501C, R-4501F, and R-4501H to address overlapping restricted areas, and make administrative changes to the R-4501A and R-4501B titles and the R-4501A-D, R-4501F, and R-4501H using agency information to standardize the format and information describing these restricted areas (79 FR 57484). The R-4501 restricted area complex amendments support the military training activities conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by amending the R-4501B designated altitudes to establish a single ceiling altitude; adding exclusions to the R-4501C, R-4501F, and R-4501H boundaries to prevent overlapped restricted areas being active at the same time; and making administrative changes to the R-4501A and R-4501B titles and the R-4501A-D, R-4501F, and R-4501H using agency information to standardize the format and information. The changes are described below.

The R-4501B designated altitudes is changed from “The area north of a line between lat. 37°42′51″ N., long. 92°06′48″ W.; and lat. 37°42′53″ N., long. 92°09′18″ W., surface to 1,500 feet MSL. The area south of this line, surface to 2,200 feet MSL.” to “Surface to 4,300 feet MSL” for the entire restricted area.

The R-4501C, R-4501F, and R-4501H boundaries are changed by adding exclusions to prevent overlapping restricted areas from being active in the same airspace at the same time. R-4501C adds “excluding R-4501B when active”; R-4501F adds “excluding R-4501A, R-4501B, and R-4501C when active”; and R-4501H adds “excluding R-4501B when active”.

The R-4501A title is changed by removing the word “West” in the title to read “R-4501A Fort Leonard Wood, MO” and the R-4501B title is changed by removing the word “East” in the title to read “R-4501B Fort Leonard Wood, MO”. Additionally, the R-4501A, R-4501B, R-4501C, and R-4501D using agency information is changed by prefacing the existing using agency with “U.S. Army.” Lastly, the R-4501F and R-4501H using agency is changed from “U.S. Army, Headquarters U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO” to “U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Leonard Wood, MO.” These administrative changes standardize the format and information describing the restricted areas contained in the Fort Leonard Wood, MO, R-4501 complex.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it modifies the restricted area airspace at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army training requirements.

This special use airspace action consists of minor adjustments to boundaries and raising the altitude of portions of the airspace, which is considered a minor adjustment to existing airspace in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 401p(5). Since there will be no changes in type or number of operations, the action is not expected to cause any significant environmental impacts that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink Online and the Online Forms/XML Web site.

The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 21 (May 2015), and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 31 (May 2015). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.2 Filers may consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission.3

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 15.1.1 on May 11, 2015 and will introduce the following changes:

EDGAR will be updated to add Regulation A submission form types DOS, DOS/A, DOSLTR, 1-A, 1-A/A, 1-A POS, 1-A-W, 1-A-W/A, 253G1, 253G2, 253G3, 253G4, 1-K, 1-K/A,1-SA, 1-SA/A, 1-U, 1-U/A, 1-Z,1-Z/A, 1-Z-W, and 1-Z-W/A.

New filers will now be able to select the “Regulation A” option on the Form ID application to indicate that they are submitting an application for EDGAR access to file draft offering statements. If filers have an assigned Central Index Key (CIK), they must use the existing CIK to file draft offering statements.

Regulation A submission form types can be accessed from the “File Regulation A Forms” screen. This screen can be accessed by selecting the `Regulation A' or `Draft Offering Statement' link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Alternatively, this screen can be accessed by selecting the `REG A' link on the “EDGARLink Online Submission Type Selection” screen.

Issuers who qualify to submit draft offering statements under Regulation A must prepare and submit their draft offering statements using submission form types DOS and DOS/A. Issuers must submit correspondences related to draft offering statements using the submission type, “Draft Offering Statement Letter” (DOSLTR).

Issuers who submit draft offering statements for non-public review will have the ability to publicly disseminate previously submitted drafts by selecting the `Disseminate Draft Offering Statement' link on the “File Regulation A Forms” screen of the EDGAR Filing Web site.

Issuers may construct XML submissions for Regulation A submission form types with the exception of DOS, DOS/A, and DOSLTR. Issuers must follow the “EDGARLink Online XML Technical Specification” document to construct XML submissions for submission form types 1-A-W, 1-A-W/A, 1-SA, 1-SA/A, 1-U, 1-U/A, 253G1, 253G2, 253G3, 253G4, 1-Z-W, and 1-Z-W/A. Issuers must follow the “EDGAR REG A XML Technical Specification” document to construct XML submissions for submission form types 1-A, 1-A/A, 1-A POS, 1-K, 1-K/A, 1-Z, and 1-Z/A. The Technical Specification documents are available on the SEC's Public Web site (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml).

Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You may also obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).4 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is May 26, 2015. In accordance with the APA,6 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 15.1.1 is scheduled to become available on May 11, 2015. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,7 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,8 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,9 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.10

In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code A. Regulatory History and Information

On September 11, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Biscayne Bay, Miami Beach, FL” in the Federal Register (79 FR 54241-54244). We received 13 comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This provision authorizes an agency to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register when the agency for good cause finds that delaying the effective period for 30 days or more is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the East Venetian Causeway Bridge experienced a mechanical failure that prevents it from being opened. Therefore, it is impracticable to make this rule effective 30 days or more after publication in the Federal Register.

The East Venetian Causeway Bridge connects Rivo Alto Island and the four Venetian Causeway islands east of Miami to Belle Isle and Miami Beach, Florida. The vertical clearance of the East Venetian Causeway Bridge is five feet above mean high water and the horizontal clearance is 57 feet between fenders.

Emergency repairs are required on both the East Venetian Causeway Bridge and the West Venetian Causeway Bridge. This rule will allow repairs to be completed on both bridges while minimizing impacts on vehicular and waterway traffic.

On August 12, 2014, the East Venetian Causeway Bridge bridge owner, Miami-Dade County, and the Mayor of Miami Beach requested that the Coast Guard consider closing the East Venetian Causeway Bridge to all marine traffic during repairs to the approach span on west side of the Venetian Islands. The roadway leading to the West Venetian Causeway Bridge will be closed to vehicular traffic while repairs are completed on the approach span and Miami-Dade County will leave the West Venetian Causeway Bridge in the open to navigation position. While the West Venetian Causeway Bridge is in the open position, vehicles accessing islands along the Venetian Causeway will use the East Venetian Causeway Bridge.

On April 20, 2015, the Coast Guard was advised that the East Venetian Bridge experienced an extensive mechanical breakdown which cannot be fixed prior to the start of West Venetian Approach replacement. These repairs can be completed while the bridge is in the closed position. However, due to the extensive repairs required to fix the East Venetian Bridge, all parties have agreed to allow the repairs to be completed after vehicle traffic is restored on the West Venetian Bridge. This rule will allow the East Venetian Bridge to remain closed to navigation until the repairs to the West Venetian Approach are completed and vehicle traffic movement has been restored.

Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 117.269 requires the East Venetian Causeway Bridge to open on signal except from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday when it opens on the hour and half-hour (Federal holidays excluded). On September 11, 2014, the Coast Guard published a NPRM that proposed amending the operating schedule for the East Venetian Causeway Bridge by authorizing it to remain closed except for an opening at 10:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. daily from November 1, 2014 until August 1, 2015. This opening schedule was proposed to limit openings during West Venetian Causeway Bridge approach span repairs. Following publication of this proposed rule, Miami-Dade County determined that waterway and vehicular traffic would be least affected if repair work started during the summer months, after the conclusion of peak tourist season. Therefore, repair work did not commence during the time period proposed.

Miami-Dade County recently notified the Coast Guard that it will be able to commence repairs to the West Venetian Causeway Bridge in June 2015. Due to the recent mechanical failure of the East Venetian Causeway Bridge, the Coast Guard is making this rule effective prior to the commencement of construction on the West Venetian Causeway Bridge.

In response to the NPRM, the Coast Guard received 13 comments, all of which expressed concerns with the ability of emergency vehicles to respond to incidents on Venetian Causeway islands in a timely manner if the East Venetian Causeway bridge operation fails while it is in the open to navigation position. The Coast Guard received no comments from the maritime community, but the proposed rule noted that maritime traffic can use the West Venetian Causeway Bridge to gain access to adjacent waterways while the East Venetian Causeway is closed.

Based on draw tender logs, the Coast Guard found that vessel traffic on this waterway typically consists of recreational boats and two commercial passenger vessels. These vessels can use the West Venetian causeway bridge as a route of similar convenience while this rule is in effect.

After considering comments received, the recent mechanical failure of the East Venetian Causeway Bridge, and the ability of maritime traffic to safely operate on waters adjacent to the East Venetian Causeway Bridge, the Coast Guard is amending the operating schedule for the East Venetian Causeway Bridge by authorizing full time closure until repairs can be made to the East and West Venetian Causeway Bridges. Miami-Dade County has confirmed that repairs to both bridges will be completed by the end of February 2016. Therefore, this rule is effective until February 28, 2016.

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

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

This rule authorizes the East Venetian Causeway Bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position at all times while repairs are made. During the time period needed for these repairs, vessel traffic seeking access through the Venetian Causeway may transit through the West Venetian Causeway bridge or, alternatively, vessels may transit around Miami Beach. Therefore, this is not a significant regulatory action because alternative routes of similar convenience are available to maritime traffic.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

No changes were made to accommodate small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the East Venetian Causeway Bridge. As discussed in 1. Regulatory Planning and Review above, these operators may use other routes to seek access to adjacent waterways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the event. Thus, delaying this temporary rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect waterways users from the hazards associated with a high speed automobile race in close proximity to a navigable waterway.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (FR). For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

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

On the morning of May 29, 2015, a series of high speed automobile races will begin and continue for three days until the evening of May 31, 2015. Participants in the Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix will race on portions of the roadway in the Belle Isle Park that are very near to the waterfront, making these areas vulnerable in the event of a collision.

The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the automobile races pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that establishing a Safety Zone around the location of the racecourse will help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

In light of the aforementioned hazards, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to prevent vessels from entering, transiting, or anchoring in the vicinity of the event. The safety zone will encompass a 50 yard wide zone around the western side of Belle Isle in U.S. Waters, of the Detroit River. The area will start on the west side of the Belle Isle Bridge at position 42°20.4′ N.; 082°59.8′ W. to 50 yards offshore; and will end 50 yards offshore south of the Dossin Museum parking lot, and extending to Belle Isle straight north to position 42°20.1′ N.; 082°59.0′ W. (all coordinates are NAD 83).

This safety zone is necessary in order to ensure the protection of Participants of the Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix and waterways users transiting the area. This safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. each day on May 29, 30, and 31, 2015.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.

Vessel operators desiring to transit through this safety zone must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this 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.

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port. Moreover, this safety zone is outside the navigable channel. Overall, the Coast Guard expects minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this safety zone.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Detroit River from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on May 29, 30, and 31, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is outside of the navigable shipping channel and will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial traffic. Vessels may be allowed to pass through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect, allowing vessel owners and operators to plan accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule to that they can better evaluate its effects on them. 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 section above.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received withou1111t jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register entitled “Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone” on June 18, 2014. The Coast Guard published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on February 24, 2015 with a comment period ending on March 26, 2015 (see 80 FR 9673). The SNPRM was published to correct coordinates of 19 of the fireworks displays and to clarify that the coordinates of the safety zones are approximate. Specifically, the SNPRM corrected the location of the safety zones for the following fireworks events: Cinco de Mayo, Tri-City Chamber of Commerce, Cedco Inc., Florence Independence Day Celebration, Ilwaco July 4th Independence Day at the Port, East County 4th of July, City of St. Helens 4th of July, Hood River 4th of July, Rufus 4th of July, Maritime Heritage Festival, Lynch Picnic, July 4th Party at the Port of Gold Beach, Roseburg Hometown 4th of July, Newport 4th of July, The Mill Casino Independence Day, Westport 100th Anniversary, Westport 4th of July, The 4th of July at Pekin Ferry, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night. Additionally, we found a duplicate entry for the Hood River 4th of July event.

The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish regulatory safety zones for safety and environmental purposes.

The safety zones are being implemented to help ensure the safe navigation of maritime traffic in the Sector Columbia River Area of Responsibility during fireworks displays. Fireworks displays create hazardous conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of vessels that congregate near the displays, as well as the noise, falling debris, and explosions that occur during the event. Because firework discharge sites can pose a hazard to the maritime public, these safety zones are necessary in order to restrict vessel movement and reduce vessel congregation in the proximity of the firework discharge sites.

Two comments to the SNPRM were submitted and no requests for a public meeting were received by the Coast Guard. Both comments were submitted by the fireworks display provider and requested corrections to two locations. The first comment stated that the location of the Astoria Regatta Firework display has changed to a different location from which was published in the SNPRM. The Coast Guard has verified this position with the firework coordinator and replaced the previous geographic latitude and longitude. The second comment stated that the location of the Astoria-Warrenton 4th of July Firework display has changed to a different location from which was published in the SNPRM. The Coast Guard has verified this position with the firework coordinator and replaced the previous geographic latitude and longitude.

The Final Rule modifies the safety zone by incorporating new areas that encompass waters within a 450 yard radius of the launch site at the approximate locations listed in the tables.

Additionally, The Final Rule amends the positions of the following fireworks displays in order to accurately reflect the approximate locations of the fireworks displays:

Finally, the final rule places the regulated areas into a table format, rather than a narrative format used previously.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the safety zones listed will be in place for a limited period of time and are minimal in duratioN

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the area covered by the safety zone. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zones will only be in effect for a limited period of time. Additionally, vessels can still transit through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before the effective period, we will publish advisories in the Local Notice to Mariners available to users of the river. Maritime traffic will be able to schedule their transits around the safety zone.

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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This 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.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 the amendment and addition of safety zones in 33 CFR 165.1315. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in Mission Bay, California, for the annual 2015 Sea World San Diego Fireworks Display (Item 7 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.1123), on May 23 through May 25, June 13 through June 30, July 1 through July 31, August 1 through August 9, August 15, August 22, August 29, September 5, and September 6, 2015. The safety zone is located off of the south side of Fiesta Island adjacent to Sea World.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, persons and vessels are prohibited during the fireworks display times from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the 800 foot regulated area safety zone around the fireworks barge, located in approximate position 32°46′03″ N., 117°13′11″ W., unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port or designated representative can be reached via VHF CH 16 or at (619) 278-7033. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of official fireworks support, event vessels or enforcement patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Coast Guard determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this notice, then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor will grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The subject event is listed in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.118 as enforced annually on the second Sunday in July, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In 2015, it will be enforced on June 6, 2015.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.118, no person or vessel, except for the safety vessels assisting with the event may enter the safety zone unless given permission from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.118 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. If the COTP determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

On March 26, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the Colorado regional haze SIP as meeting the applicable requirements of Sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308-309 (Regional Haze Rule) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y (Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Guidelines).1 Among the components of the SIP was a nitrogen oxides (NOX) BART determination for Units 1 and 2 at Comanche. As with several other facilities, the State submitted a BART analysis for Comanche that took into account the five factors required by section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA. The State determined that the existing emission controls at Comanche Units 1 and 2, low-NOX burners with over-fire air (LNB/OFA), are BART. EPA proposed to approve the State's NOX BART determination for Comanche.

EPA received several adverse comments on its proposed approval, including comments from WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). On December 31, 2012, EPA published a notice of its final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP.2 That final action included an approval of the Comanche NOX BART determination.

On February 25, 2013, NPCA and Guardians filed petitions seeking the Tenth Circuit's review of EPA's final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP.3 Guardians challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 of the Craig Station; Units 1 and 2 of the Comanche Station; and Boilers 4 and 5 of the Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC), LLP facility at the Coors Brewery. Guardians also challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's reasonable progress determination for Craig Unit 3, and the deadlines for compliance with emission limits for the units at all three facilities. NPCA challenged only EPA's approval of Colorado's BART and reasonable progress determinations for Craig Units 1, 2, and 3. After the court consolidated the cases for review, EPA reached a settlement with NPCA and Guardians concerning their claims related to the Craig Station,4 and Guardians elected not to pursue its claims regarding CENC/Coors. Guardians' claims concerning the Comanche Station are still active. In response to these claims, EPA moved the court for a partial voluntary remand of its 2012 final approval without vacatur so as to provide a more detailed and complete response to some of the adverse comments on the proposed approval.5 The court granted EPA's motion.6

We received adverse comments on our proposed approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP, including comments from Guardians related to our proposed approval of Colorado's BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 at the Comanche Station. We are reissuing our final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP with respect to Comanche to provide more detailed and clearer responses to the Comanche-related adverse comments. The responses below contain our complete, updated, and clarified responses to comments related to the Comanche NOX BART determination.

Comment: The commenter argues that Comanche Units 1 and 2 are currently meeting lower NOX emission rates than the State's BART emission limits that EPA proposed to approve. The commenter cited the State's BART analysis, noting that currently Unit 1 is emitting at an average annual rate of 0.124 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 is emitting at an average annual rate of 0.165 lb/MMBtu, and compares those rates to the Colorado BART limits: a 30-day emission rate of 0.20 lb/mmBtu, and a combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu. According to the commenter, allowing these units to emit more pollution than they currently emit does not represent BART and would not lead to visibility improvements, and nothing in the CAA or EPA's regulations suggests that it is appropriate for BART limits to include any such cushion. Further, the commenter alleges that that under the annual BART limits, NOX emissions will be allowed to increase by at least 14 tons per year (tpy), and that the 30-day rolling average limits would allow Unit 1 to emit at least 40% more NOX than the baseline 30-day rolling average peak and Unit 2 to emit 12% more NOX. The commenter claims that the data demonstrates that Unit 1 could meet a 30-day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 could meet a limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu without any trouble, and that the BART limits should reflect what is achievable. Accordingly, the commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove Colorado's NOX BART determinations for Comanche Unit 1 and Unit 2 and adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits that represent actual emission reductions.7

Response: We disagree with this comment. The State set NOX BART emission limits for Comanche Units 1 and 2 individually at a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu and a combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. As EPA requested in our October 26, 2010 comment letter during the state public comment process, the State considered tightening the 30-day limits, but ultimately chose not to do so. In EPA's judgment, the State could have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance, but a more robust analysis would not have led it to reach a different conclusion as to the Comanche NOX BART limits. Further, if we were to disapprove the SIP and promulgate a FIP with lower emission limits, the actual emissions from Comanche would unlikely be significantly lower. We therefore decline to disapprove the NOX BART determination for Comanche.

In our October 26, 2010 comment letter to the State, we asked Colorado to evaluate tightening Comanche's NOX limits. The State conducted that evaluation.8 Based on its experience, and after reviewing other state BART proposals, Colorado found that 30-day rolling average NOX emission rates could be expected to be up to approximately 15% higher than annual average emission rates. With this in mind, and also considering uncertainty regarding load fluctuations, cold-weather operating, startup, and increased cycling to back up renewable energy generation, the State concluded that a 0.20 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average emission limit was appropriate for both units.

As a general matter, EPA finds it appropriate and reasonable to allow a margin for compliance in setting 30-day rolling average BART limits, and we have approved other state BART determinations that included such margins. The shorter 30-day averaging period results in higher variability in emissions because of load variation, startup, shutdown, and other factors. Accordingly, we have not generally required that 30-day rolling average emission limits be equal to the annual emission rates used for calculating cost-effectiveness. We find the State's application of a margin for compliance here consistent with that approach.

The compliance margin included for the Comanche units is larger than we would generally expect. But we find that with respect to Comanche, the compliance margin is unlikely to lead to significant actual NOX emissions increases. After all, the lower Comanche emissions cited by the commenter occurred under permit limits identical to those the State selected as BART, and the commenter has provided no evidence that the facility will change its operations just because the State has adopted the permit limits as BART limits. Instead, emission rates are likely to remain near the baseline figures cited by the commenter, which as the commenter notes are below the BART limits. An occasional rise is possible in light of the uncertainties referred to above, which is the purpose of allowing a margin for compliance above the actual 30-day rolling average emissions levels. The commenter appeared to at least partly acknowledge this reality, stating that “[w]e do not suggest that the State was required to set the emission limits exactly at the levels emitted.” 9 But none of these uncertainties suggests that there will be a consistent increase in emissions over the long term.

As for annual average emission rates, Colorado found that in 2009, the annual average rate for both units combined was about 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Colorado did not propose applying a margin of compliance to the 2009 annual average rate, and set a limit at 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Because short-term emissions increases and decreases should average out over the course of any single year, we believe that setting the BART annual emission limit at about the annual emission rate from 2009 is reasonable, unless there is evidence that the source was not properly operated in 2009 or that annual average source operating conditions in 2009 were unrepresentative of future operations. The commenter has not alleged that there is any such evidence. The commenter does assert that the 0.15 lb/MMBtu annual limit would allow an increase in actual emissions if both units operate at the BART limit. The potential emissions increase calculated by the commenter, however, would only be 14 tons of NOX per year. A 14-ton increase is not significant when compared to the annual NOX emissions of approximately 3,860 tons from Comanche Units 1 and 2; it does not warrant disapproval and a subsequent FIP.10

The commenter alleges, but does not support or quantify, a “likely” further increase (beyond the claimed 14-ton increase) based on the potential for one unit to exceed 0.15 lb/MMBtu while the combined rate remains below that limit. This comment appears to be referring to a scenario in which the unit operating above 0.15 lb/MMBtu would have a higher heat input than the unit operating below 0.15 lb/MMBtu, so that together they would still comply with the SIP's 0.15 lb/MMBtu average emission rate limit while having higher emissions than if each unit were held to a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. With the existing LNB/OFA controls, though, neither unit can be operated at an emission rate much below its current emission rate, and so there is unlikely to be “room” for the other unit to operate much higher while still meeting the combined emission limit. Also, the two units are subject to very similar physical limits on heat input.11 We therefore find that any additional emissions consistent with a 0.15 lb/MMBtu combined limit would be insignificant from a visibility standpoint. Further, we note that the annual NOX BART limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu is below the average actual emissions of 0.16 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2 between January and October 2010.12 Therefore, Colorado imposed an annual emission limit that was lower than the then most recent partial-year figures for Units 1 and 2.

The commenter also argues that the 30-day rolling average limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu would allow emission increases because the actual 30-day rolling average rates have consistently been below this number. Annual emissions are controlled by the SIP's limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for the average of the two unit's annual average emission rates, and would be so controlled even if there were no 30-day limits at all. The issue of whether the State and EPA correctly assessed how well the annual limit will control annual emissions was addressed above. Therefore, EPA understands that this comment regarding the 30-day limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is meant to address the possibility that the emission rate of one or both units in 30-day periods may be higher than 0.15 lb/MMBtu, while the source could still comply with respect to the annual average limit by having lower emissions in other 30-day periods. EPA agrees that this is possible, but the State modeled the baseline visibility impact of the source assuming a constant emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, so the possibility has been fully considered.

For these reasons, we have determined that while the State could have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance it allowed, a more robust analysis would not have led it to reach a different conclusion as to the NOX emission limits for Comanche Units 1 and 2. In its next regional haze SIP, the State can review the longer history of emissions from Comanche that will be available then, and consider whether a downward adjustment in the emission limit is appropriate to ensure the best possible operation of the emission controls.

Comment: The commenter asserts that the State failed to appropriately assess the cost of SCR, by assuming that SCR would achieve an emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis. But, according to the commenter, EPA has noted that SCR can achieve emission rates as low as 0.04 lb/MMBtu on an annual basis, and a 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate on an annual average basis is a more appropriate benchmark from which to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR. The commenter claims that because the State did not assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR based on a rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, the State did not reasonably take into account the cost of compliance with SCR in accordance with the CAA. The commenter adds that although EPA and the State may claim that SCR would not be cost-effective in any case, there is no support for such an assertion, and without an adequate case-specific cost analysis, there is no support for concluding that SCR is unreasonable, particularly for Unit 2.13

Response: We disagree with this comment. We have reviewed the information in the administrative record for this action again, and we find that our previous conclusion is still correct. We agree that SCR can achieve annual NOX emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, and that ideally Colorado would have used this value when assessing the SCR control option.14 But if the State had done so, the marginally lower emissions would not have caused the State to reach a different conclusion as to what technology is BART.

First, we note that the comment misstates the rate that Colorado actually used for the purpose of calculating cost-effectiveness. In the Comanche NOX BART analysis, the State assumed an annual emissions rate for SCR of 0.061 lb/MMBtu—not 0.07 lb/MMBtu.15 (The latter figure was the 30-day rolling average rate, not the annual average as the commenter contends.16 ) Therefore, the relevant comparison for the commenter's purpose would be between the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average rate that the State used and the 0.05 lb/MMBtu annual average emission rate that the commenter prefers.

Using the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average emission rate, Colorado estimated emissions of 740 tpy for Unit 1 and 869 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR.17 Based on those estimated emissions, the State calculated emission reductions of 770.4 tpy for Unit 1 and 1,480 tpy for Unit 2, compared to a baseline level of emissions measured in 2009 that reflected the installation of LNB/OFA controls.18 Based on these reductions, the State derived cost-effectiveness values for SCR of $15,920 per ton and $9,900 per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.19 It is a simple exercise to insert the annual average emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu into the State's technical analysis spreadsheet.20 Doing so, we can see that using the figure the commenter recommends would have produced estimated emission levels of about 609 tpy for Unit 1 and 713 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR, which in turn give emission reductions of 897 tpy (Unit 1) and 1,636 tpy (Unit 2) compared to a 2009 baseline level and cost-effectiveness values of $13,670 and $8,956 per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.21 Considering that these adjusted cost-effectiveness values remain high and (as discussed below) the extent of the benefits associated with SCR remains low, we do not believe that the impact on the BART analysis would have led to a different conclusion if Colorado had used the more stringent emission rate. Therefore, we conclude that the State's use of 0.061 lb/MMBtu to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCR at Comanche is not grounds for disapproval.

Comment: The commenter states that Colorado appears to have overestimated the capital cost of SCR, in that the State's reliance on the CUECost model led to artificially inflated capital costs. According to the commenter, both EPA and the National Park Service (NPS) previously commented to the State that the State should have used EPA's Control Cost Manual, and both noted that the CUECost model relied upon by the State is not appropriate. The commenter argues that the State does not explain in the record why its use of CUECost was reasonable, particularly in light of the concerns expressed by EPA and the NPS.22

Response: We agree that there were flaws in Colorado's approach to estimating the costs of SCR for the Comanche BART units, and that the CUECost model likely yielded an inflated cost estimate. In the referenced correspondence, EPA stated that “the CUECost model yields high capital costs for the Comanche facility,” and suggested that the capital costs calculated would have been approximately 50% lower if the CCM had been followed.23 But even if we reduce the capital cost estimates by that percentage, and also adjust the emission rate as discussed in the previous comment, we believe that the cost of SCR at Comanche would still be high compared to the visibility benefits, and that Colorado's decision not to require SCR would still be reasonable.

Specifically, cutting the capital cost estimate by 51.6%, and using the more stringent 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate discussed in the previous comment, produces cost-effectiveness values of $9,319 and $6,481 per ton for employing SCR at Units 1 and 2, respectively.24 Thus, even after addressing both of the cost issues raised by the commenter, the cost-effectiveness values remain high. Also, as discussed below in response to another comment, we have concluded that the visibility benefits that would result from SCR are insufficient to justify these high costs. Accordingly, we do not believe that Colorado would have reached a different NOX BART conclusion if it had used the CCM in its analysis (as well as the more stringent emission rate discussed previously).

In its SIP, the State explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX control would generally be reasonable if costs did not exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and if the controls provided a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 deciviews (dv) or greater at the primary Class I Area affected.25 Considering the State's guidance, it is clear that making the adjustments that the commenter requests would not lead to a different outcome. Therefore, considering all the BART factors, we do not see a basis to conclude that using a lower capital cost estimate, combined with a 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate for SCR, would have led the State to reach a different conclusion or should lead us to disapprove the State's BART determination.

Comment: The commenter states that Colorado and EPA may claim that, even if the costs were accurately assessed, the visibility benefits of SCR would not be significant, but that there is no support for this assertion. According to the commenter, it appears that Colorado's assessment of visibility improvements is based on an assumption that the proposed BART limits, which the commenter refers to as the “do nothing” BART limits, would actually improve visibility. But, the commenter claims, the proposed BART limits would allow increased emissions, and therefore would not improve visibility. On the other hand, states the commenter, SCR would appear to provide significant visibility improvements. The commenter argues that for Unit 2 this is especially significant because SCR was the only available technology analyzed for BART.26

Response: We disagree with this comment. In relation to the high costs, the visibility benefits of SCR at Comanche are not sufficiently large to warrant disapproval of the State's BART determination. We would come to this conclusion regardless of whether the cost component of the BART analysis involved the State's original figures or the adjusted figures discussed above in response to previous comments. The State estimated that SCR would produce visibility improvements of 0.14 dv (Unit 1) and 0.17 dv (Unit 2) as compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA baseline.27 This level of expected visibility improvement from SCR is insufficient to cause us to conclude that the State's BART determination is unreasonable.

As discussed above in response to a previous comment, we recognize that the State did not use the 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate that accurately represents the performance capabilities of SCR. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the State would have estimated slightly greater visibility benefits from SCR if it had used the 0.05 lb/MMBtu rate. In EPA's judgment, however, the visibility benefits compared to the 2009 baseline would have remained modest. We note, for instance, that in the State's analysis of Comanche Unit 1, the difference in visibility benefit between selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) (with a NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu) and SCR (with a NOX emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu) is only 0.03 dv.28 We conclude that the impact of a further reduction in emission rate to 0.05 lb/MMBtu would be similarly small.29

As mentioned previously, the State explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX control will generally be reasonable when costs do not exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and when the controls provide a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 dv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected.30 While we agree with the State that these guidance criteria should not be used as absolute determinants of BART outcomes, they are in general consistent with the decisions that other states and EPA have made when considering whether to require SCR as NOX BART, and generally reflect a reasonable balancing of the BART factors. In this case, we expect that even using the SCR emission rate requested by the commenter, the visibility improvement from SCR would fall well below the State's criteria. Judging these visibility improvements against the fairly high cost of SCR (again, even after adjustment to reflect the comments), we find that the State's decision not to impose SCR was reasonable.

The commenter incorrectly asserted that the State's BART determination was based on the assumption that existing controls would improve visibility compared to current levels. Colorado did not claim that its BART emission limits would result in visibility benefits compared to current levels (that is, compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA emissions baseline). The State did note that the existing level of control provided benefits when compared to the 2004 baseline, which is true. But while Colorado referred to both a pre-LNB/OFA baseline and a 2009 baseline when discussing visibility benefits, the State actually used only the 2009 baseline in calculating cost-effectiveness, and likewise relied on visibility benefits based on the 2009 baseline in making the BART determination for Comanche.31 We have reviewed the visibility estimates and cost calculations that the State relied on when making its BART determination for Comanche and have confirmed that they were based on comparisons to the 2009 baseline.32

It was correct for the State to use the 2009 baseline for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 in the BART determination. The CAA requires that, in making BART determinations, states and EPA take into consideration “any existing pollution control technology in use at the source.” 33 As we explained in detail in our final action on the Wyoming regional haze SIP, this consideration should generally incorporate controls into baseline emissions if the controls were installed to comply with CAA requirements other than the BART requirement. 34 That is exactly what happened with respect to Comanche Units 1 and 2. The controls in question had been placed on these units to “net out” of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review requirements for NOX and SO2 emissions from the new Unit 3.35 Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to use the 2009 emissions baseline, which reflected the reductions achieved by LNB/OFA, in its BART analysis for Comanche.

Finally, we addressed the assertion that the State's BART limits would lead to increased emissions in our response to a previous comment. The commenter has failed to offer any support for this claim, and we do not find any basis to conclude that increased emissions will result from the State's BART limits.

For the above reasons, while we agree that SCR at Comanche Units 1 and 2 would result in visibility improvements, we find that the State reasonably concluded that those visibility improvements would not be sufficient to justify the cost involved.

Comment: The commenter states that it is unclear why Colorado rejected SNCR for Comanche Unit 1, particularly because the proposed BART limit for Unit 1 is less stringent than Unit 1's current actual emissions. Citing EPA figures, the commenter asserts that Unit 1 would meet a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu under an SNCR scenario. The commenter notes that the State found that the cost of $3,644 per ton of NOX reduced and the perceived “low visibility improvement” warranted a determination that SNCR was not reasonable for Unit 1. The commenter asserts, however, that this cost is squarely within the range of what Colorado considers to be cost-effective.36

Response: We find that the State's rejection of SNCR was reasonable based on its weighing of the BART factors. The State concluded that the cost of SNCR was not warranted given the relatively modest 0.11 dv visibility improvement that would result. Even if a control technology is cost-effective on a dollar per ton basis, a state may conclude that the control technology is not warranted based on a reasonable consideration of all five BART factors.

Comment: The commenter states that Colorado's analysis indicates that SNCR would achieve greater emission reductions than an emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. According to the commenter, although the State asserts that the visibility improvement from SNCR would amount to 0.11 dv, it is unclear why such improvements are not reasonable or are insignificant, particularly given that the purpose of BART is to reduce or eliminate visibility impairment. The commenter argues that there is no explanation in the record supporting the State's assertion. Further, the commenter argues that it appears as if the State's assessment of visibility improvements is based on an incorrect assumption that the proposed BART limit would actually improve visibility. The commenter states that when compared to the real impacts of the State's proposed BART limit for Comanche Unit 1, SNCR appears to provide significant visibility improvements, because, as opposed to the proposed BART limit, SNCR would actually achieve improvements. Therefore, the commenter concludes, EPA must promulgate a FIP that establishes an appropriate NOX BART limit for Comanche Unit 1.37

Response: The commenter is correct that the State predicted that SNCR would result in additional improvement in visibility over the control technology that the State selected as BART. However, this does not mean that the CAA or our regulations required the State to select SNCR as BART. For the reasons stated above, we find that it was reasonable for the State to reject SNCR based on consideration of all five BART factors. We agree that SNCR would result in visibility improvements, but as with SCR, we agree with the State's assessment that the visibility improvements were insufficient to justify the cost involved.

Regarding the commenter's claim that the State's selected limits will lead to an increase in emissions, as discussed above in detail, the commenter has presented no evidence that any emissions increase will occur.

With respect to the Comanche Station, EPA is re-finalizing its approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP submitted on May 25, 2011. Because this re-finalization merely gives additional explanation in response to comments and does not alter any previous determinations, it does not affect any applicable SIP compliance deadlines. Our action is based on an evaluation of Colorado's regional haze SIP submittal for Comanche against the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP requirements contained in CAA section 110, other provisions of the CAA, and our regulations applicable to this action were also evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance with these requirements and to provide additional rationale to support our conclusions.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Colorado revisions to its SIP to address the requirements of EPA's regional haze rule discussed in section III, Final Action, of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve the use of measurement or other standards; and

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

• The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On March 18, 2014, Virginia submitted formal revisions to its SIP through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). These SIP revisions consist of the removal of Stage II from the attainment and maintenance plans for the Virginia Areas. The SIP revisions also consists of an analysis demonstrating that the removal of Stage II from the Virginia Areas' attainment and maintenance plans will not cause any increase in emissions. This analysis satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA because it demonstrates the SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP) of the NAAQS nor interfere with any other CAA applicable requirement. Virginia's analysis shows that the removal of Stage II from these Areas will not worsen air quality nor interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in the Areas. The analysis also satisfies the requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2) for comparability of control measures with the emissions reductions from Stage II for the portion of the Areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

Stage II is a means of capturing gasoline vapors displaced during transfer of gasoline from the gasoline dispensing unit to the motor vehicle fuel tank during vehicle refueling at a GDF. Stage II involves the use of special refueling nozzles and coaxial hoses for vapor collection at each gasoline pump at a subject GDF. Gasoline vapors belong to a class of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds along with nitrogen oxides (NOX) are precursors to the formation of ozone. Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems have been a required emission control measure in areas classified as serious, severe, and extreme for the ozone NAAQS.

The amendment of the CAA in 1990 required, under CAA section 182(b)(3), Stage II controls for moderate ozone nonattainment areas and Stage II or comparable controls in the OTR. See CAA section 184(a) and (b)(2). However, under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, the requirements of section 182(b)(3) would no longer apply in moderate ozone nonattainment areas upon EPA promulgation of standards for onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) as part of new motor vehicles' emission control systems, and would no longer apply in serious or above ozone areas after EPA's determination that ORVR technology is in widespread use. ORVR is a mechanism employed by vehicles to re-use the vapors in their gas tanks instead of allowing them to escape. Over time, non-ORVR vehicles continued to be replaced by ORVR-equipped vehicles. On May 16, 2012, EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the U.S. vehicle fleet and waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II vapor recovery at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as Serious or above for the ozone NAAQS. In that rulemaking, EPA determined that emission reductions from ORVR-equipped vehicles were essentially equal to and would soon surpass the emission reductions achieved by Stage II alone, and that a state previously required to implement a Stage II vapor recovery program may take appropriate action to remove the measure from its SIP. See 77 FR 28772 (further providing that states could address CAA section 110(l) for removal of Stage II by showing removal would not result in an emissions increase).

The Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area was designated as a serious nonattainment area under the 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area was designated as moderate under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The Fredericksburg Area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS was designated as a moderate nonattainment area.

On December 19, 1997, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (the three States) submitted an attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area. On April 17, 2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA conditionally approved the attainment plan. However, on November 13, 2002 (67 FR 68805), EPA reclassified the Area as severe nonattainment. To meet the requirements of the severe classification, the three States submitted an attainment plan on February 24, 2004. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), this attainment plan was approved.

On June 12, 2007, the three States submitted an attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area, which EPA proposed to approve on March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17161). Subsequently on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA published a clean data determination as well as a determination of attainment that the Area met the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS by its mandated attainment date, which was based on the 2008 to 2010 monitored air quality data. While the clean data determination suspended the requirement to submit certain planning-related SIPs for the Area, including the attainment demonstration, EPA was not precluded from acting on an attainment demonstration submitted for the Area. On April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19206), EPA approved the attainment plan. On September 28, 2005, a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg Area were submitted by Virginia. On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165), EPA approved the Fredericksburg Area redesignation request and maintenance plan.

The 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was revoked on June 15, 2005. However, EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS retained the Stage II-related requirements under CAA section 182(b)(3), for certain areas under the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f)). Therefore, the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area was required to contain provisions for the implementation of Stage II.

The March 18, 2014 SIP revision submitted by VADEQ seeks removal of Stage II from the attainment and maintenance plans for the Virginia Areas. The analysis submitted by VADEQ for the SIP revision addresses the effects of removing Stage II from the Virginia Areas. In accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA, the analysis demonstrates that the removal of Stage II from the Virginia Areas will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The analysis also meets the requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2), which the Northern Virginia Area is subject to because it is a part of the OTR. For this analysis, VADEQ followed EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures. The guidance document provides a method in which states could provide certain calculations showing that increased emissions from non-ORVR compatible Stage II would eventually negate benefits from the implementation of Stage II. Also, the guidance gives the states flexibility to provide additional or alternate analyses to EPA for consideration.

As recommended by the guidance, VADEQ calculated the area-wide (the Virginia Areas) VOC inventory emissions benefits from Stage II. These calculations show the point at which the emissions increases from non-ORVR compatible Stage II would overtake emissions benefits from Stage II. The VOC inventory calculation results from year 2008 to 2020 are provided in Table 1, Stage II Emissions Reductions in the Virginia Areas-Wide VOC Inventory. The results provided in Table 1 demonstrate that in 2013 there would no longer be a VOC emissions benefit from Stage II, or that the emissions benefit is negative, and Virginia removed the Stage II requirement from its regulations on January 1, 2014. VADEQ also provided additional data and analyses demonstrating that Stage II has very little impact on VOC emissions in the Virginia Areas and that modeling indicates that the formation of ozone in the Area is much more dependent on NOX emissions than VOC emissions. EPA finds removal of Stage II from the attainment and maintenance plans will not increase emissions of VOC or increase ozone. EPA also finds removal will not interfere with attainment, maintenance, or RFP for the NAAQS, nor interfere with any other CAA requirement. The SIP revision also addresses CAA section 184(b)(2) comparability requirements. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to approve these SIP revisions including analysis of CAA sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2) may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action and is available on line at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0422.

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

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

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

EPA is approving the revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to remove Stage II from the attainment plans for the Northern Virginia Areas and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg Area. EPA is approving these revisions because it was demonstrated that the removal of the Stage II requirement on January 1, 2014 will not cause any emissions increases that could interfere with the Virginia Areas' attainment or maintenance of the 1990 1-Hour and/or 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA is also approving these revisions because they meet the requirements of the comparability clause in CAA section 184(b)(2). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 27, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 25, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

This action approving the removal of Stage II from the Virginia Areas' attainment and maintenance plans may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

EPA is taking final action to determine that the Cleveland area and Delta area have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period showing that the areas have monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Further, with this determination of attainment, the requirements for the Cleveland and Delta areas to submit attainment demonstrations together with RACM, RFP plans, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines are suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As discussed below, this action is consistent with EPA's regulations and with its longstanding interpretation of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA.

If either the Cleveland area or the Delta area violates the 2008 Pb NAAQS after this action, the basis for the suspension of these attainment planning requirements would no longer exist for that area, and the area would thereafter have to address applicable requirements.

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary Pb NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. This is the “2008 Pb NAAQS.” On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years 2007-2009. These designations became effective on December 31, 2010.1 The Cleveland and Delta areas were designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.343.

On February 20, 2015, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to EPA to make a determination that the Cleveland and Delta areas have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled monitoring data from 2012 through 2014. For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA finds the request approvable.

Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the (fine particulates) PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (December 14, 2004).

Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment. For a full discussion on EPA's application of this policy, see section III of the Bristol, Tennessee Determination of Attainment for the 2008 Pb Standards (77 FR 35653).

Today's rulemaking assesses whether the Cleveland and Delta areas have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of quality-assured data. The Cleveland area, which surrounds the Ferro Corporation facility, is comprised of the portions of Cuyahoga County that are bounded on the west by Washington Park Blvd./Crete Ave./East 49th St., on the east by East 71st St., on the north by Fleet Ave., and on the south by Grant Ave. The Delta area, which surrounds the Bunting Bearings facility, is comprised of the portions of Fulton County that are bounded by sections 12 and 13 of York Township and sections 7 and 18 of Swan Creek Township.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and secondary Pb standards are met when the maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Cleveland and Delta areas in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. This review addresses air quality data collected in the 2012-2014 period which are the most recent quality-assured data available.

The 39-035-0049 monitoring site is a Federal reference method (FRM) source-oriented monitor which meets the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 58, appendix A. After the Ferro facility completed repairs, installed additional back-up control devices, and implemented a preventative maintenance plan by 2012, the Pb values have been well below the standard.

Table 1 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for the Cleveland area.

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

On March 11, 1996, EPA approved the general conformity rules in chapter 3745-102 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) into the Ohio SIP (61 FR 9646). General conformity is a requirement of section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that no Federally supported actions outside of highway and transit projects interfere with the purpose of the approved SIP, i.e. the SIP's protection of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. General conformity requirements currently apply to the following criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The general conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B and provisions related to general conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.851.

On August 10, 2005, the transportation act was signed into law, and among other things, it amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254), EPA updated the general conformity SIP regulations to be consistent with the transportation act by eliminating the Federal regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.851. On July 21, 2014, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted a request to remove the general conformity regulations from the Ohio SIP.

We have reviewed Ohio's submittal to ensure consistency with the current CAA, as amended by the transportation act, and EPA regulations governing state procedures for general conformity (40 CFR 51.851). Specifically, 40 CFR 51.851(a) was changed to indicate that states “may”, not “must” submit to EPA a general conformity SIP because, as 40 CFR 51.851(b) indicates, Federal agencies shall use the provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B in addition to any existing applicable state or tribal requirements to review the conformity of Federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Ohio's removal of general conformity rules from its SIP meets the requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the CAA with respect to adoption and submission of SIP revisions. 40 CFR part 93, subpart B continues to subject certain Federal actions to general conformity requirements without the need for identical state rules and SIPs. Therefore, repealing the state rule will not impact continuity of the general conformity program in Ohio, and consequently meets the requirements of section 110(l). Ohio's request to remove the general conformity regulations from the Ohio SIP is approvable.

EPA is approving the removal of the general conformity regulations in OAC chapter 3745-102 from the Ohio SIP. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 27, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 25, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 27, 2015.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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 (Public Law 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. Id. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas was the Baltimore Area (specifically, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County), which was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. Id. Later, the Baltimore Area was reclassified as a serious nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 4901 (February 1, 2012). See 40 CFR 81.321. Air quality monitoring data from the 2012-2014 monitoring period indicate that the Baltimore Area is now attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15711), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed to determine that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. The determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Baltimore Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Baltimore Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates the Baltimore Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period for 2012-2014 for the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.084 ppm, and all monitors meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1). Based on this 2012-2014 data from the Air Quality System (AQS) database and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has concluded that the Baltimore Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0883 and available online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0883.

EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. This determination suspends the requirement for the Baltimore Area to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. Finalizing this determination does not constitute a redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). This determination of attainment also does not involve approving any maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area and does not determine that the Baltimore Area has met all the requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that the attainment be due to permanent and enforceable measures. Therefore, the designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final rulemaking action to determine that the Baltimore Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.

This action makes a determination of attainment based on air quality, and will result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and will not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action determining that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6491), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, the EPA proposed approval of revisions to West Virginia's nonattainment NSR program, notably provisions for preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources of PM2.5 and for NSR reform, with the exception of certain revisions related to ethanol production facilities on which the EPA proposed taking no action. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by West Virginia on June 29, 2010, July 8, 2011, July 6, 2012, and July 1, 2014.

While each of the SIP revisions was submitted individually, the EPA is finalizing approval of these submittals as a whole. As described in the proposal, there are some instances where specific language was added in a West Virginia regulation included in one of the earlier SIP submittals but the language was subsequently removed from that same regulation included in a later SIP submittal such that the EPA therefore only assessed the approvability of that portion of the regulation included in the later SIP submittal. It should be noted that the most recent version of West Virginia's nonattainment NSR regulations is the version included for SIP approval in the 2014 submittal, and this submittal reflects the sum of the changes made from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 submittals as well.1

In this final action, the EPA is revising 40 CFR part 52, subpart XX to reflect approval of revisions to West Virginia's nonattainment NSR program in Series 19 under Title 45 of West Virginia Code of State Rules (45CSR19), with the exception of certain provisions related to ethanol production facilities on which the EPA proposed taking no action. A full description of the revisions submitted by West Virginia is available in the proposed approval and in the docket for this rulemaking action. No comments were received during the public comment period for the proposed rule.

The revisions submitted by WVDEP which the EPA is approving in this action involve amendments to 45CSR19 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment Areas) as a result of Federal regulatory actions discussed in the proposal for this final rule. A summary of the changes made in the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 submittals are available in the docket under “Summary of West Virginia NSR Changes.”

As discussed in the proposal to this final rule, West Virginia's SIP revisions include provisions that exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the definition of “chemical process plants” in the major NSR source permitting program as amended in the 2007 Ethanol Rule. The 2010 submittal added provisions at 45CSR19-2.35.e.20 and 3.7.a.20 that remove certain ethanol production facilities from the definition of “chemical process plants.” These provisions are also included in the subsequent 2011, 2012, and 2014 submittals. In this final rulemaking, the EPA is taking no action on the submitted regulation revisions at 45CSR19-2.35.e.20 and 3.7.a.20 that address the 2007 Ethanol Rule.

The EPA's review of this material indicates that the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 SIP submittals collectively meet the federal counterpart requirements in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 for a nonattainment NSR permitting program. For the reasons stated previously, the EPA is approving these WV SIP submissions with the exception of the revisions to 45CSR19-2.35.e.20 and 3.7.a.20. The EPA is taking no action on the 45CSR19 regulations relating to the definition of “chemical process plants” which are at 45CSR19-2.35.e.20 and 3.7.a.20.

In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 45CSR19, with the exception of certain provisions related to ethanol production facilities on which the EPA proposed taking no action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving revisions to West Virginia's nonattainment NSR program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History III. Background IV. 2014 Litigation V. Good Cause VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism I. Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement NAICS North American Industry Classification System NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget  § Section symbol U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History

On September 4, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment” in the Federal Register.1 On December 1, 2014, we published revenue audits of the pilot associations and reopened the public comment period in the Federal Register.2 On February 26, 2015, we published a final rule entitled “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment.” 3

The vessels affected by this rulemaking are those engaged in foreign trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. United States and Canadian “lakers,” 4 which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not affected.5 For further background information, please see the February 26, 2015 final rule at 80 FR 10365 at 10366. For further information summarizing the February final rule, see pages 10368 through 10383 of that document.

The basis of this rule is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”) (46 U.S.C. Chapter 93), which requires U.S. vessels operating “on register” 6 and foreign vessels to use U.S. or Canadian registered pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system.7 The Act requires the Secretary to “prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.” 8 Rates must be established or reviewed and adjusted each year, not later than March 1. Base rates must be established by a full ratemaking at least once every 5 years, and in years when base rates are not established, they must be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted.9 The Secretary's duties and authority under the Act have been delegated to the Coast Guard.10 Coast Guard regulations implementing the Act appear in parts 401 through 404 of Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Procedures for use in establishing base rates appear in 46 CFR part 404, appendix A, and procedures for annual review and adjustment of existing base rates appear in 46 CFR part 404, appendix C.

This final rule advances the effective date of the 2015 final rule published on February 26, 2015, which established new base pilotage rates, using the methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, appendix A.

The Coast Guard published its “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2014 Annual Review and Adjustment” final rule on March 4, 2014. Rates set in that rule took effect on August 1, 2014, and have remained in effect since then.11 Shortly after publication, the three Great Lakes pilot associations filed suit 12 under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),13 challenging the manner in which the Coast Guard applied American Maritime Officers Union wage and benefit data. Under the Coast Guard ratemaking methodology, that data significantly affects rate adjustments. On March 27, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion holding that the Coast Guard had not properly applied the union data, and was therefore arbitrary and capricious in setting the 2014 rates, which consequently were set lower than they should have been. The court ordered the parties to brief the appropriate remedy, recognizing that the normal remedy of vacating and remanding the 2014 rule would be counterproductive because the 2013 rates are lower than the rates set in the 2014 rule. Given that the usual remedies are impractical, the parties have discussed a remedy that advances the effective date for 2015 rates set in our 2015 final rule.14

The Coast Guard is advancing the August 1, 2015 effective date of the 2015 final rule without following the usual APA procedures for prior notice and public opportunity to comment, and for thirty days to elapse between publication of a rule and the effective date of that rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Coast Guard finds that it has good cause to depart from these procedures because to follow those procedures would be impracticable and contrary to public interest.

Standard APA procedures would require publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, taking and considering public comments on that notice, publishing a second document actually advancing the effective date, and then waiting thirty days before that advancement could take effect. However, effective implementation of the remedy depends on acting as soon as practicable to advance the current August 1, 2015 effective date for the 2015 rates. The effectiveness of the remedy is reduced by each day that advancement of the effective date is delayed, thereby leaving the 2014 rates invalidated by the court in place and reducing the additional compensation that the pilots receive from advancement. Delay in order to follow standard APA notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures is therefore impracticable, because any delay would largely, if not wholly, defeat the remedy's purpose.15

Delaying the implementation of this rule to follow standard APA notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures is also contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard is statutorily required to set Great Lakes pilotage rates “giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing services.” 16 The Coast Guard's goal in setting pilotage rates is to serve the public interest in assuring “safe, efficient, and reliable” pilotage service on the Great Lakes.17 The court has accepted the pilot associations' argument that the 2014 rates inadequately compensate them for the cost of providing service. Inadequate compensation reduces the funds that the plaintiff pilot associations need to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, because it weakens their ability to operate, attract and retain qualified pilots, and maintain pilot boats and other infrastructure, all of which are essential to providing current and future pilotage services. The intended effect of the remedy of advancing the effective date of the 2015 rates is to mitigate the impact of the inadequate compensation provided by the invalidated 2014 rates. Therefore any delay in implementing the remedy, diminishes the Coast Guard's ability to mitigate the inadequate compensation of the 2014 rates and would harm the public interest in assuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage.18

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866.

Below is our analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule; this analysis assists in ascertaining the probable impacts of this rule on industry. The Coast Guard is advancing the effective date for the February 26, 2015 final rule adjusting rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes in accordance with a full ratemaking procedure. The rate adjustments made by the February 2015 final rule are unchanged, but instead of taking effect on August 1, 2015, the rates will take effect June 2, 2015. We estimate that shippers will experience an increase in payments of approximately $283,761 across all three districts as a result of this rulemaking.

A regulatory assessment follows.

The Coast Guard is advancing the effective date of the final rule published on February 26, 2015, which established new base 2015 pilotage rates. This action leads to an increase in the cost per unit of service to shippers in all three districts for the additional period that the 2015 rates will be in effect. The calculations of the rates in the 2014 ratemaking 19 and the 2015 ratemaking 20 remain unchanged. The shippers affected by these rate adjustments are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on a route within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels.

Owners and operators of other vessels that are not affected by this final rule, such as recreational boats and vessels operating only within the Great Lakes system, may elect to purchase pilotage services. However, this election is voluntary and does not affect our calculation of the rate and is not a part of our estimated national cost to shippers.

We used 2011-2013 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. Using that period, we found that approximately 114 different vessels journeyed into the Great Lakes system annually. These vessels entered the Great Lakes by transiting at least one of the three pilotage districts before leaving the Great Lakes system. These vessels often made more than one distinct stop, docking, loading, and unloading at facilities in Great Lakes ports. Of the total trips for the 114 vessels, there were approximately 353 annual U.S. port arrivals before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on 2011-2013 vessel data from MISLE.

We estimate the additional impact (cost increases) of the rate adjustment in this rule to be the difference between the 2014 and 2015 pilotage rates, multiplied by the additional bridge hours resulting from advancing the 2015 rate effective date. For this analysis, we assumed the earliest practicable effective date the 2015 rates could be advanced to is June 1, 2015. This would add an additional two months of bridge hours from the August 1, 2015 effective date set in the February 26, 2015 final rule. Table 1 details the additional cost increases by area and district as a result of this rulemaking.

We estimate that shippers will experience an increase in payments of approximately $283,761 across all three districts as a result of this rulemaking. The resulting increase in costs is the change in payments from shippers to pilots from advancing the effective date of the 2015 rates. This figure is equivalent to the total additional payments that shippers would incur for pilotage services. This figure, however, is dependent on a June 1, 2015 effective date for this rulemaking. Any delays in the effective date will result in a lower cost impact to the shippers.

To calculate an exact cost per vessel is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some owners and operators would pay more and some would pay less, depending on the distance and the number of port arrivals of their vessels' trips.

This rulemaking provides the pilots with additional compensation that will partially offset revenue losses due to the lower 2014 rates, during the months when those rates would otherwise remain in effect. This rulemaking helps assure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage by increasing the pilot compensation that is artificially low due to the the 2014 rates invalidated by the court.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), rules that are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements are also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As discussed previously, Coast Guard for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest. Consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysisis is required.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. This rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the OMB under Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below. Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.” 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of state law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a “State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.”

As a result, States or local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WC Docket No. 07-244; CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 99-200; DA 14-482 adopted and released on June 20, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. In this Order, we adopt several recommendations of the NANC, a federal advisory committee for telephone number administration, pertaining to LNP. The Communications Act defines number portability as “the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another. This means that customers have the ability to keep their telephone numbers if they change service providers, with a few exceptions. This process is called telephone number “porting.” These recommendations all involve changes to the LNP “provisioning flows” and are intended to improve the telephone number porting process. Telephone number porting is accomplished by the old and new service providers working together and following a uniform set of flow charts, referred to as the “LNP provisioning flows.” These flows consist of diagrams and accompanying narratives which explain the processes service providers follow in specific porting scenarios. The recommendations addressed in this Order are changes to the narratives that accompany the diagrams.

2. These improvements include revising existing processes for cancelling a number port request, clarifying the timeline for re-using disconnected ported numbers, and stopping new service providers from prematurely activating ports. Also in this Order, we clarify that, notwithstanding the NANC's preference for area code overlays over area code splits, the states still have the option to choose the best means of implementing area code relief for their citizens. An area code “split” occurs when the geographic area served by an area code is divided into two or more geographic parts. An area code overlay occurs when a new area code is introduced to serve the same geographic area as one or more existing area codes. In both scenarios, callers must dial a ten-digit telephone number (three-digit area code, plus seven-digit number) to reach end users.

3. In May 2010, the Commission adopted various provisioning flows in its LNP Standard Fields Order. However, the Commission recognized that industry developments would likely require changes to these flows. It also acknowledged that “the NANC is best situated to monitor the continued effectiveness of the provisioning process flows, and make recommendations when changes are needed.” Thus, the Commission decided that the provisioning flows adopted in that order would remain in effect until the Commission approves revised provisioning flows based on recommendations from the NANC. The Commission delegated authority to the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to approve such recommended revisions and directed the NANC to make the revised provisioning flows, once approved, available to the public on the NANC Web site.

4. Flows for Cancellations and Disconnections. On January 2, 2013, the NANC submitted a letter to the Bureau recommending revisions to the provisioning flows for port cancellations, termed by the NANC as the “Cancel Flows.” These flows apply when a customer asks a new service provider to port his or her number, and then subsequently decides to cancel that request and remain with his or her current provider. The customer must notify one of the providers of the cancellation. The NANC recommended three revisions to these flows. The first revision clarifies the responsibilities of the current and new service providers. It states that if the customer contacts the current provider, that provider may choose to advise the customer to call the new provider to cancel the port request. If the customer contacts the new provider, that provider must cancel the port. The second revision states that if the current provider decides to cancel the port request, it must obtain verifiable authority from the customer, such as a Letter of Authorization, dated after the initial port request. The new provider must then process the cancellation request, even if the current provider does not provide an actual copy of the authorization. The third revision outlines the different steps to be taken to notify the new provider of the cancellation, depending on whether the current provider is a wireline or a wireless provider.

5. In its January 2013 letter, the NANC also recommended deleting language in the flow entitled “Disconnect Process for Ported Telephone Numbers.” That flow applies to “aging numbers,” defined by section 52.15(f)(ii) of the Commission's rules as “disconnected numbers that are not available for assignment to another customer for a specified period of time.” The language to be deleted reads, “[t]he maximum interval between disconnect date and effective release is 18 months.” The NANC proposes to delete this language because it is inconsistent with section 52.15(f)(ii) of the Commission's rules, which provides that a service provider may not “age” disconnected residential numbers for more than 90 days and disconnected business numbers for more than 365 days.

6. The Bureau sought comment on these NANC recommendations in May 2013. In response, the Commission received comments from CenturyLink supporting the NANC's recommended revisions to these flows. No commenter opposed the recommendations.

7. Flows and Premature Activation of Ports. On October 17 and October 28, 2013, the NANC submitted letters requesting that the Commission accept Best Practice 65, which provides that both service providers involved in a port must agree to any changes to the original due date for that port. According to the NANC letters, there is a perceived loophole in the current flows that prompts some new service providers to activate ports hours or days before the agreed-to porting date and before the old service providers have their networks ready to port a number out. These premature port activations can disrupt customers' service. The NANC believes it is important that current and new service providers coordinate when activating a port, to avoid service disruptions. By Best Practice 65, and corresponding provisioning flows, the NANC intends to close the perceived loophole and stop premature activation of ports.

8. The Bureau sought comment in December 2013 on the NANC's request to accept Best Practice 65 and the corresponding provisioning flows. The Commission received comments from CenturyLink and AT&T supporting the Best Practice and the corresponding flows, and received no opposition to either.

9. In its October 17, 2013 letter, the NANC also recommends approval of Best Practice 30, which calls for “All-Services Area Code (NPA) Overlays,” rather than area code splits, as the best solution for area code relief. The NANC states that “NPA Overlays have both practical and technical positive implications for customers and service providers alike.” The letter and accompanying attachment explain that an overlay avoids the need to synchronize old and new area codes in the LNP database to ensure that port requests are completed on time and are not misrouted. The NANC notes that area code overlays treat all customers the same, allowing them to retain their existing area codes and telephone numbers.

10. The Bureau sought comment on Best Practice 30 in December 2013, along with Best Practice 65. CenturyLink and AT&T support Best Practice 30. Three state agencies express concern about making area code overlays mandatory. The state agencies contend that states have the greatest expertise regarding the issues facing their citizens and should continue to have autonomy to decide whether an area code split or an overlay is more appropriate.

11. We conclude that all of the NANC's proposed revisions to the provisioning flows will improve the number porting process for service providers and their customers. The flow revisions clarifying the process for cancelling port requests will improve communications between service providers, and will ensure that port cancellation requests are handled properly and without customer inconvenience. The change to the disconnection flow will make the disconnection process consistent with Commission rules on aging disconnected telephone numbers, lessening service provider and customer confusion. Also, Best Practice 65 and the corresponding provisioning flows will ensure that service providers are in sync when activating a port, thus avoiding disruption of service to customers. Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's authority over telephone number administration and porting, and the authority delegated to the Bureau by the full Commission, we adopt the NANC's recommended changes to the LNP provisioning flows and require the industry to adhere to them. Pursuant to the Commission's 2010 LNP Standard Fields Order, we direct the NANC to make these revised provisioning flows available to the public through the NANC's Web site.

12. The NANC's Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group has created many Best Practices to facilitate porting between service providers. The Bureau appreciates and commends those efforts to improve the number porting process. However, we do not, in this Order, adopt and codify Best Practice 30. And, we make clear that unless the Commission specifically adopts and codifies a Best Practice, it is not mandatory. Section 52.19(a) of the Commission's rules gives state commissions the discretion to decide how to introduce new area codes within their states. Therefore, the states still have the option to choose between an area code split or overlay in determining the best way to implement area code relief for their citizens.

13. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

14. The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

15. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CARTS, etc.) by email: [email protected]; phone: (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

16. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-4(j), 5, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 155, 251, 303(r), this Order approving the North American Numbering Council's recommendation to revise the “Cancel Flows” in the Local Number Portability Provisioning Flows, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200, is adopted.

17. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-4(j), 5, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 155, 251, 303(r), this Order approving the North American Numbering Council's recommendation to revise the “Disconnect Process for Ported Telephone Numbers” in the Local Number Portability Provisioning Flows, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200, is adopted.

18. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-4(j), 5, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 155, 251, 303(r), this Order approving the North American Numbering Council's recommendation to accept Best Practice 65 and the corresponding revisions to the Local Number Portability Provisioning flows, and denying the North American Numbering Council's recommendation to accept Best Practice 30, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200, is adopted.

19. It is further ordered that this Order shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

I. Background

DoD is issuing a final rule amending the DFARS to establish the level of approval required for a determination and findings (D&F) for time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, or portions of contracts, exceeding $1 million. The D&F must address why cost-plus-fixed-fee and other contract types are not appropriate. The approval requirements in this rule do not apply to contracts that support contingency or peacekeeping operations, or that provide humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, or recovery from conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it pertains to requirements for internal documentation within DoD, specifically, determination and findings for use of the time-and-materials and labor-hour contract types. These requirements affect only the internal operating procedures of the Government. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it has no effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD, and has no cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:

I. Background

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 65331 on September 19, 2014, to amend the DFARS regarding multiyear contracts to update the cancellation ceiling threshold at DFARS 217.170(e)(1)(iv) for consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and correct statutory references. The rule also corrects references to 10 U.S.C. 2306b, 10 U.S.C. 2306c, and section 8008a of Public Law 105-56 throughout DFARS subpart 217.1.

No public comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule.

There are only minor editorial changes in the final rule from the proposed rule. Cross references contained within some paragraphs required revision since several paragraphs were redesignated and renumbered due to relocation of text or the addition of new text.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

This rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) regarding multiyear contracts to ensure consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the underlying statutes. The objective of this rule is to increase the cancellation ceiling threshold at DFARS 217.170(e)(1)(iv) from $100 million to $125 million to ensure consistency with the threshold at FAR 17.108(b).

In addition, this rule corrects references to 10 U.S.C. 2306b, 10 U.S.C. 2306c, and section 8008a of Pub. L. 105-56 throughout DFARS subpart 217.1 and makes the following clarifications:

• Requests for increased funding or reprogramming for procurement of a major system is relocated under DFARS 217.172(j) since it is in reference to a type of multiyear supply contract.

• A multiyear contract for supplies in excess of $500 million must be specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an appropriations Act in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(3).

• A multiyear procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) with a value greater than $500 million must be specifically authorized in an appropriations act in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2306b(l)(3).

No comments were received from the public in response to initial regulatory flexibility analysis published in the proposed rule.

Small businesses will not be affected by this rule. The rule will only impact procedures and authorities internal to the Government for multiyear contracts that require a cancellation ceiling up to $125 million or multiyear contracts for supplies with a value in excess of $500 million.

The rule imposes no reporting, recordkeeping, or other information collection requirements.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 217 is amended as follows:

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 73539 on December 11, 2014, to amend Appendix F of the DFARS to identify the Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) Energy Receiving Report as the electronic equivalent of the paper DD Form 250 for overland shipments and the DD Form 250-1 for waterborne shipments. DFARS 232.7002, Policy, requires contractors to submit payment and receiving reports in electronic form, and the accepted electronic form identified in DFARS 232.7003, Procedures, is WAWF. In addition, the clause at DFARS 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports, requires payment requests and receiving reports using WAWF in nearly all cases.

There were no public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. No changes have been made from the proposed rule.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

This rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Appendix F to identify the Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) Energy Receiving Report as the electronic equivalent of the DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, for overland shipments and the DD Form 250-1, Tanker/Barge Material Inspection and Receiving Report, for waterborne shipments.

DFARS 232.7002, Policy, requires contractors to submit payment and receiving reports in electronic form, and the accepted electronic form is WAWF. DFARS 232.7003, Procedures, identifies WAWF as the accepted electronic form. In addition, the clause at DFARS 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports, requires payment requests and receiving reports using WAWF in nearly all cases.

No comments were received from the public regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The rule affects all DoD contractors who are not exempt from using WAWF. Exempt classes of contracts are those that are listed under the seven categories of contracts at DFARS 232.7002, Policy.

The projected recordkeeping is limited to that required to properly record shipping and receiving information under Government contracts. Preparation of these records requires clerical and analytical skills to create the documents and input them into the electronic WAWF system.

There is no significant economic impact on small entities.

The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35). However, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0248, entitled Material Inspection and Receiving Report.

Therefore, 48 CFR chapter 2, subchapter I, is amended in appendix F as follows:

1. Do not submit Classified Business Information (CBI) to EPA Web site http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

3. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

The EPA is revising EPAAR 1552.211-72, Monthly Progress Report, and 1552.211-77, Final Reports, to incorporate existing class deviations. Additionally, 1552.211-77 is updated to allow and clarify the electronic submission of final reports and, as such, should ease the administrative burden on Agency contractors. The revision of 1552.211-75, Working Files, changes a minor word in the clause and 1552.211-78, Management Consulting Services, changes the title of the clause to be consistent with the title of the prescription Advisory and Assistance Services. The final rule published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 57339, November 6, 1996, was intended to change the title of this EPAAR clause from “Management Consulting Services” to “Advisory and Assistance Services”, as well as the prescription title. However, execution of the Federal Register resulted in the change being applied to the title of the prescription only, which was in error.

This final rule makes the following changes:

1. Revises EPAAR 1552.211-72 to incorporate an existing class deviation.

2. Revises EPAAR 1552.211-75 to change the word “its” to “the contractor's”.

3. Revises EPAAR 1552.211-77 to incorporate an existing class deviation and update to allow and add the instructions for the electronic submission of final reports.

4. Revises EPAAR 1552.211-78 to change the title of the clause from “Management Consulting Services” to “Advisory and Assistance Services” to be consistent with the title of the prescription.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O. 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of this final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities” 5 U.S.C. 503 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This action revises current EPAAR clauses and will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this action from State and local officials.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28335 (May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the general public.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of Agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Chapter 15 of Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations, part 1552 is amended as set forth below: