Federal Register Vol. 82, No.126,

On December 2, 2015, FSIS published the final rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish,” establishing a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes (80 FR 75590). The final rule set forth regulations in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to include all fish of the order Siluriformes as amenable species and specifically provided for the inspection of Siluriformes fish and fish products to be used as human food. The regulations include a new part 557 (9 CFR 557.1-557.8, 557.10-557.19 and 557.24-557.26), “Importation,” which, among other things, requires that all fish and fish products from any foreign country be reinspected before entering the U.S. (9 CFR 557.6(a)(1)).

The final rule was effective on March 1, 2016, but provided an 18-month transitional period until September 1, 2017, to ensure an orderly transition from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory oversight to the FSIS mandatory fish inspection program. During the transitional period, the Agency is exercising broad discretion in enforcing the new regulatory requirements, except when product is determined to be adulterated (e.g., the product contains a violative residue or is contaminated) or misbranded (e.g., the product is missing a label).

The final rule stated that during the transitional period, imported fish and fish products would be reinspected and subjected to species and residue testing on at least a quarterly basis for each foreign establishment eligible to export fish to the U.S. Further, as discussed in the preamble of the final rule, at the end of the 18-month transitional period, all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments would be reinspected, just as all imported meat and poultry products are reinspected (80 FR 75608). FSIS began selecting shipments of imported Siluriformes for reinspection and residue testing on April 15, 2016.

The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31 Stat. 135, enacted May 5, 2017, directs FSIS to begin reinspecting all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments upon the date the Act is enacted (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/05/03/CREC-2017-05-03-bk2.pdf). FSIS is issuing this notification announcing that beginning August 2, 2017, all shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish product must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel.

To apply for import reinspection, applicants, typically the Importer of Record, must submit a paper or an electronic inspection application form (FSIS Form 9540-1) to FSIS in advance of the shipment's arrival, but no later than when the entry is filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (9 CFR 557.5). The applicant must identify, on the application, the official import inspection establishment where reinspection will occur. The paper import inspection application is available on line at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a8eead0d-23c3-428e-937f-a8a05b09edbb/FSIS-9540-1-Import-Inspection-Application.pdf? MOD=AJPERES.

After August 2, 2017, FSIS will begin taking action in regard to imported fish product that has bypassed FSIS import reinspection, but entered commerce, i.e. “failure to present” (FTP) product.

FSIS will be posting reinspection guidance materials on its Siluriformes Web page https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/siluriformes.

A list of Official Import Inspection Establishments available to reinspect Siluriformes fish is available on the FSIS Siluriformes Web page https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/b58fa982-8029-4ccb-88c1-1663f32070d9/Siluriformes-I-Houses.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

FSIS also strongly encourages importers and brokers to communicate and coordinate closely with your FSIS District Office, to facilitate full compliance prior to August 2, 2017 https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/districtoffices.

In addition, the Agency will announce any additional information in the Agency's Constituent Update (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituentupdates).

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) implements the Freedom of Information Act through its regulations found at 10 CFR part 1703. This rule amends the DNFSB's regulations to incorporate certain changes made to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016)). The FOIA Improvement Act also requires agency regulations to address dispute resolution procedures and to provide notification to requestors about the availability of dispute resolution services. The FOIA Improvement Act requires the DNFSB to issue regulations which incorporate the changes made by the FOIA Improvement Act. This rule updates the DNFSB regulations in 10 CFR part 1703 to reflect those statutory changes.

The FOIA Improvement Act requires a change to the DNFSB's fee schedule, which will be updated in a separate notice. The fee schedule was last published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2015, 80 FR 52174. Pursuant to the FOIA Improvement Act, the DNFSB will not assess any search fees if it has failed to comply with any time limit for response to the request absent an extension of its time limit.

The FOIA Improvement Act requires agencies to designate a FOIA Public Liaison and also elevates the responsibility of the Chief FOIA Officer. Additionally the Act adds to the agency record reporting requirements. The DNFSB will provide this information through its FOIA electronic reading room. The Chief FOIA officer is the DNFSB Deputy General Manager, and will designate a FOIA Public Liaison. Information about how to contact the FOIA Public Liaison will be available through the DNFSB FOIA electronic reading room.

The DNFSB is issuing this rule as a final rule without the opportunity for public comment. The agency finds, for good cause, that allowing for notice and public comment is unnecessary. The changes made to the DNFSB implementing regulations reduce the burden on requestors, provide additional dispute resolution alternatives, and require the DNFSB to meet its response deadlines or waive the fees in whole or in part. The changes to the regulations are mandated by statute. The DNFSB has also reviewed public comments provided to other Federal agencies that have issued their regulations for public comment, and the DNFSB has used those comments to inform its regulations.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments). The DNFSB has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule decreases the regulatory burden for requestors under FOIA, waives fees under certain circumstances, and provides additional dispute resolution options. Additionally, the agency received 21 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2016 and charged $0.00 in fees. The DNFSB therefore determines and certifies that these amendments to its FOIA implementing regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) establishes certain requirements when an agency conducts or sponsors a “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations implementing FOIA are required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations do not require or request information, but rather, explain the agency's FOIA procedures. Submitting a request for agency records under FOIA is voluntary, so the information collected from requestors is not covered by the restrictions of the PRA.

According to Executive Orders 12988 and 13132, agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. The amendments to the agency's FOIA implementing regulations affect only FOIA requests submitted to the agency, and therefore, have no effect on preemption of State, tribal, or local government laws or otherwise have federalism implications.

This rule will not result in and is not likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. As such, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The proposed regulations amend the DNFSB procedures for processing FOIA requests. The procedural changes to the FOIA implementing regulations will not result in significant impacts affecting the quality of the human environment, unavoidable adverse environmental effects, rejection of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of environmental resources. The agency has not consulted with any other agencies in making this determination.

Paragraph (a) is revised to identify the transition from a physical public reading room to an electronic public reading room. The FOIA Improvement Act mandates that certain records previously made available to the public through a public reading room, now be available for public inspection in an electronic format. The DNFSB has been in the practice for several years to make its FOIA records publicly available in an electronic format on its public Web site (https://www.dnfsb.gov). The DNFSB FOIA records will be available through its electronic reading room on its Web site (https://www.dnfsb.gov/foia-reading-room).

The Board is removing this section as unnecessary. The Board will apply the exemptions allowed by the FOIA, as amended, in determining whether to withhold a document from disclosure pursuant to a FOIA request. The re-statement of the FOIA exemptions in its regulation does not expand or narrow the scope of the exemptions and is unnecessary for either implementation or interpretation.

The Board is amending this section to make explicit the waiver of fees if the Board does not meet its response deadlines under the FOIA Improvement Act.

The Board is amending this section to provide notice of availability of assistance from the agency FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services. The DNFSB will work with the Office of Government Information Services on any issue referred to them for alternative dispute resolution. The FOIA Improvement Act provides the right of a requestor to seek assistance with the FOIA request or to seek dispute resolution services. The section is also being amended to allow an appeal from an adverse decision on access within 90 days of the denial.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends 10 CFR Chapter 17, part 1703 as follows:

The Council 1 is publishing an interim final rule revising its information disclosure regulations under the Freedom of Information Act 2 (FOIA Regulations). On June 30, 2016, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 3 (FOIA Improvement Act). Among other things, section 3 of the FOIA Improvement Act required each Federal agency to revise its disclosure regulations and procedures for processing FOIA requests in order to conform to the substantive amendments made by section 2 of the FOIA Improvement Act by December 27, 2016. Accordingly, the Council is implementing the required substantive and procedural changes necessary to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments (such as changing the appeal deadline from 10 working days to 90 days and providing additional limitations on the fees charged by the Council). In addition, the Council is making certain changes to its FOIA Regulations to reflect revisions brought about by prior amendments to the FOIA that were incorporated into the Council's procedures and to make the FOIA process easier for the public to navigate (such as providing an email address where administrative appeals may be submitted electronically). In drafting these amendments to the FOIA Regulations, the Council consulted the “Guidance for Agency FOIA Regulations” issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Information Policy.

The Council is also correcting technical and typographical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last revised and published as a final rule in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014). That publication resulted in the inadvertent duplication of two provisions in the Council's FOIA Regulations and the inadvertent omission of one provision. Accordingly, this interim final rule removes the duplicative provisions and reinserts the provision that was inadvertently deleted when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last amended in 2010. The following is a section-by-section discussion of the changes.

The Council initially published a final rule announcing the above changes on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94937), and is hereby correcting that interim final rule to allow for a public comment period and to implement the changes set forth below.

This interim final rule amends the Council's FOIA Regulations in 12 CFR 1101.4, as described below.

To implement the mandatory requirements made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is revising § 1101.4(a) to clarify that the Council records available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) include records released for a FOIA request three or more times or that are likely to become the subject of subsequent FOIA requests, and that such records will be made available in electronic format.

In accordance with the amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is also revising § 1101.4(b)(1) and (2) to reflect that information will only be withheld if the Council reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law, and to reflect that the deliberative process privilege only protects records that were created less than 25 years before the date when the records were requested.

In order to implement the recent amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act and prior amendments to the FOIA, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(A) to provide that, whenever the Council extends the 20-day response time for a FOIA request by more than ten working days due to unusual circumstances, the Council's FOIA Public Liaison is available to assist the requester in modifying the scope of their FOIA request and that the requester may seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) or from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison.

The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(3) to provide that all determination letters from the Executive Secretary will advise requesters of their right to seek assistance from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison, which reflects a procedural change required by the FOIA Improvement Act.

To implement the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA with respect to appeals, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(4) and (b)(3)(vi) to provide that, in the case of an adverse determination, requesters must be informed of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS, and that requesters have 90 days to file an administrative appeal (extended from the prior deadline of 10 working days). Relatedly, in order to mirror the more expansive language of the FOIA and to reflect the Council's current practice, the Council is updating the language in § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(4) and (b)(3)(vi) to clarify that a requester has the right to administratively appeal any “adverse determination” (not just to appeal the denial or partial denial of a request for records). The new language in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B)(4) of this section also provides examples of the adverse determinations that may be appealed. In paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of this section, the Council is adding language to inform members of the public that they have the additional option to submit administrative appeals via email and providing an email address for members of the public to use to send such administrative appeals.

The Council is amending § 1101.4(b)(4)(i) to reflect that records will also be made available to requesters for public inspection in electronic format as required by the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA.

The FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA restrict an agency's ability to charge search or duplication fees in certain circumstances. The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii) introductory text and (b)(5)(ii)(G) to reflect the statutory restrictions on charging fees.

In § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(E), the Council is replacing the words “Council personnel” with “the Council's FOIA Public Liaison,” in order to identify a specific point of contact whom members of the public can contact.

The Council is also correcting three technical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were revised in 2010. Section 1101.4(b)(5)(iii)(A) and (b)(5)(iv) were both amended as published in a final rule in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014).4 However, both the original version and the revised version of these paragraphs inadvertently remained in the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014). Accordingly, the Council is deleting the first appearance of paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A), deleting the second appearance of paragraph (b)(5)(iv), and making minor grammatical edits to the current paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A). In addition, the Council is reinserting § 1101.4(b)(5)(v), which was inadvertently removed from the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014) due to a publication error.

The Committee invites comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As discussed above, this interim final rule implements the substantive amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act. Congress provided Federal agencies with no discretion in amending their information disclosure regulations to comply with the statutory amendments made to the FOIA, and required that such conforming amendments become effective by December 27, 2016. Additionally, the three revisions fixing prior publishing errors are merely technical corrections to provisions that were already subject to public notice and the opportunity to comment. The other revisions bring the language of the Council's FOIA Regulations into alignment with the more expansive language of the FOIA, reflect the Council's current procedures, and provide the public with expanded benefits.

Given that the substantive amendments to the Council's FOIA Regulations are mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act and were required to be implemented by December 27, 2016, and that the other amendments are technical in nature or expand the rights of the public, the Council for good cause finds that prior notice and comment on this rulemaking is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). For these same reasons, the Council finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). While the interim final rule is effective immediately upon publication, the Council is inviting public comment on the interim final rule during a 60-day period and will consider all comments in developing a final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because the Council has determined for good cause that a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule is unnecessary, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is inapplicable because this interim final rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public. Law. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the Council has sought to present the interim final rule in a simple, comprehensible, and straightforward manner. The Council invites comment on whether the Council could take additional steps to make the rule easier to understand.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Council amends 12 CFR part 1101 as follows:

In the Federal Register of Thursday, April 6, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-06854, on page 16734, the following correction is made:

On page 16734, in the third column, the bulleted list of waivers of the Sanitary Transportation rule was published in an incorrect format. This document corrects that format to read as follows:

In accordance with the requirements of section 416 of the FD&C Act, by this notice we are waiving the following persons from the applicable requirements of the Sanitary Transportation rule:

1. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that hold valid permits and are inspected under the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments' Grade “A” Milk Safety Program, only when engaged in transportation operations involving bulk and finished Grade “A” milk and milk products.

2. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are appropriately certified and are inspected under the requirements established by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference's NSSP, only when engaged in transportation operations involving molluscan shellfish in vehicles that are permitted by the State NSSP certification authority.

3. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are permitted or otherwise authorized by the regulatory authority to operate a food establishment that provides food directly to consumers (i.e., restaurants, retail food establishments, and nonprofit food establishments as defined in 21 CFR 1.227), only when engaged in transportation operations as:

a. Receivers, whether the food is received at the establishment itself or at a location where the authorized establishment receives and immediately transports the food to the food establishment;

b. shippers and carriers in operations in which food is transported from the establishment as part of the normal business operations of a retail establishment, such as:

i. Delivery of the food directly to the consumer(s) by the authorized establishment or a third-party delivery service; or

ii. delivery of the food to another location operated by the authorized establishment or an affiliated establishment where the food is to be sold or served directly to the consumer(s).

In the Federal Register of May 4, 2017, FDA published an interim final rule with a 60-day comment period to request comments on the extension of the compliance date for our final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments. The interim final rule extended the compliance date from May 5, 2017, to May 7, 2018, and invited comment on several specific questions on how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives to provide consumers with nutrition information so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Comments will inform FDA's regulation for the disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments.

We have received a request for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the interim final rule. The request conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the interim final rule.

FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for the interim final rule for 30 days, until August 2, 2017. We believe that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying Agency action on these important issues.

In a notice published in the Federal Register of September 16, 2016 (81 FR 63728), we announced that we filed a color additive petition (CAP 6C0306) submitted by McCormick & Company, Inc., c/o Exponent, 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations in § 73.530 (21 CFR 73.530) Spirulina extract to provide for the expanded safe use of spirulina extract, prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of Arthrospira platensis, to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs. The color additive is intended to be sold as a powder in a packet to consumers at levels consistent with GMP.

Spirulina extract is currently approved under § 73.530 for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), and coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract also is currently approved under 21 CFR 73.1530 for coloring coating formulations applied to drug tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract is exempt from certification under section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(c)) because we previously determined that certification was not necessary for the protection of public health (78 FR 49117 at 49119, August 13, 2013).

The spirulina extract that is the subject of this final rule is a blue-colored powder produced by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of A. platensis (also known as Spirulina platensis), an edible blue-green cyanobacterium. The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring components. Based on data and information provided in the petition on the identity, physical and chemical properties, manufacturing process, and composition of the color additive, we have determined that the color additive meets the specifications for spirulina extract in § 73.530 (Ref. 1).

Spirulina-derived ingredients have also been the subject of four notices submitted by firms to FDA informing us of their determinations that certain uses of these substances in food are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (78 FR 49117 at 49118). Under section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a substance that is GRAS for a particular use in food is not a food additive, and may lawfully be utilized for that use without our review and approval. There is no GRAS exemption, however, to the definition of color additive in section 201(t) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, we must approve the use of a color additive in food before it is marketed; otherwise the food containing the color additive is adulterated under section 402(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(c)). One GRAS notice (GRN 000424) pertains to the use of a spirulina-derived substance that is similar in chemical composition to the color additive that is the subject of this final rule, but the substance that was the subject of GRN 000424 has a much higher phycocyanin content (Ref. 3). Importantly, in our response to these GRAS notifications, we indicated that if the substances that were the subject of these submissions impart color to the food, they may be subject to regulation as a color additive.

Under section 721(b)(4) of the FD&C Act, a color additive may not be listed for a particular use unless the data and information available to FDA establish that the color additive is safe for that use. Our color additive regulations at 21 CFR 70.3(i) define “safe” to mean that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive. To establish with reasonable certainty that a color additive intended for use in foods is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to the color additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. We compare an individual's estimated exposure, or estimated daily intake (EDI), of the color additive from all food sources to an acceptable daily intake level established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined by projections based on the amount of the color additive proposed for use in particular foods or drugs and on data regarding the amount consumed from all ingested sources of the color additive. We commonly use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a color additive as a measure of high chronic exposure.

During our safety review of this petition (CAP 6C0306), we considered the projected human dietary exposure to spirulina extract and to phycocyanins (the principal coloring components) from the petitioned use and from currently permitted uses of spirulina extract in foods and ingested drugs. McCormick submitted an exposure estimate for spirulina extract and for phycocyanins for the petitioned use of spirulina extract based on a worst-case scenario that presumed that spirulina extract could potentially migrate from the outside of the egg shell to the edible portion of the egg. McCormick estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs would result in an exposure to spirulina extract of 8.8 milligrams per person per day (mg/p/d) at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). McCormick also estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract would result in an exposure to phycocyanins of 1.9 mg/p/d at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). Despite providing this worst-case estimate, McCormick noted that egg shells are not consumed and demonstrated that the spirulina extract applied to the outside of an egg shell generally does not migrate through the shell and the outer and inner membranes separating the shell from the edible portion of the egg. For these reasons, McCormick asserted that the amount of spirulina extract that would actually be found on the edible portion of an egg would be negligible, resulting in a 0.17 percent increase of the cumulative estimated daily intake (CEDI) for phycocyanins (Ref. 2). The previously estimated upper bound CEDI for phycocyanins from all GRAS-notified uses of spirulina extract in food is 1,140 mg/p/day or 19 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg bw/d) for a 60 kg individual based on uses addressed in GRN 000424 (Ref. 3). We agree that McCormick's exposure estimate is sufficiently conservative. We conclude that the exposure to spirulina extract and phycocyanins resulting from the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is negligible, and that the petitioned use would not result in a significant contribution to the CEDI for phycocyanins (Ref. 2).

To support the safety of the proposed use of spirulina extract to color the shells of hard-boiled eggs, McCormick referenced the safety determinations made by FDA for CAPs 2C0293 (78 FR 49117, August 13, 2013), 2C0297 (79 FR 20095, April 11, 2014), and 4C0300 (80 FR 50762, August 21, 2015). McCormick also conducted a search of the peer-reviewed scientific literature for animal and human oral consumption studies that tested spirulina, spirulina-derived ingredients, and phycocyanins that were published between January 1, 2014, and July 20, 2016. McCormick submitted to us the published animal and human studies that they identified as being relevant to their petition. We evaluated the submitted safety information and additional studies that we identified as relevant and concluded that this information does not raise any safety concerns (Refs. 4 and 5).

In our previous evaluation of the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in foods (80 FR 50762), we did not have any concerns regarding the safety of the use of spirulina extract and its major coloring components, phycocyanins. Taking into account all the available safety information and the estimated exposure to phycocyanins from the petitioned use, we conclude that the proposed use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe (Ref. 5).

We discussed the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins in our final rule for the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in candy and chewing gum (78 FR 49117 at 49119). Based on the comparison of the known amino acid sequences of phycocyanins with the sequences of known protein allergens, we determined that there is a low probability that phycocyanins are protein allergens. We therefore concluded that the spirulina phycocyanins present an insignificant allergy risk. Additionally, after a review of the literature relevant to the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins, we have determined that spirulina phycocyanins still present an insignificant allergy risk (Refs. 4-7). We are not aware of any new information that would cause us to change this conclusion.

Based on the data and information in the petition and other relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe. We further conclude that the color additive will achieve its intended technical effect and is suitable for the petitioned use. Consequently, we are amending the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73) as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in 21 CFR 71.20(b), we continue to conclude that certification of spirulina extract is not necessary for the protection of the public health.

In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 71.15, we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as stated in the September 16, 2016, Federal Register notice of petition for CAP 6C0306 (81 FR 63728). We stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(r), that this action “is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment” such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Our review of this petition was limited to section 721 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (ll)(4) of the FD&C Act applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food containing this color additive. Accordingly, this final rule should not be construed to be a statement that a food containing this color additive, if introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is included in all color additive final rules that pertain to food and therefore should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.

This rule is effective as shown in the DATES section, except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:

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

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2017, to allow participants to cross the bridge, uninterrupted, during the San Francisco Marathon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

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

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

The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate reconstruction of the bascule leaves.

The West Bay Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 0.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 13.3 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Horizontal clearance is 50 feet. Utilization of a work barge placed underneath one of the bascule leaves will reduce horizontal clearance to 25 feet. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).

This temporary deviation will allow the Beach Lane Bridge to open only one of the two bascule spans for bridge openings from 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on March 30, 2018. Dual lift span operations will be available, provided 48 hours of advance notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge.

The majority of vessels requiring bridge openings are sailing vessels and yachts transiting the waterway. Discussion with the proprietor of the Modern Yachts Marina located in the vicinity of the bridge confirms typical recreational traffic will continue to be able to proceed through the navigation opening of the bridge during one-leaf operations. Moreover, the bulk of recreational traffic that utilizes the waterway is largely seasonal in nature, peaking during the late spring, summer and early autumn months. Little to no recreational traffic transits the Quantuck Canal throughout the winter. Small scale tug/barge combinations occasionally transit the Quantuck Canal, but such commercial craft are generally limited in size. Mariners concur that the requirement to provide the bridge owner 48 hours of advance notice for dual lift span operations will not impede overall operations.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with concurrence of the bridge owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.

The Wantagh Parkway Bridge, mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 21.8 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5.

The temporary deviation will allow the Wantagh Parkway Bridge to remain closed from 9 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(4) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017 on all waters of Siskiwit Bay bounded by the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with it center in position 46°51′35″ N., 091°06′15″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779-5100. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Duluth or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779-5100.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the event.

The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River; Alexandria Bay, NY contained within a 350-foot radius of position 44°20′32.8″ N., 075°55′02.71″ W. (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Garlock Wedding fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771 Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

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 a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement for only one hour late in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the maritime Fireworks Display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 560 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 04, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 560 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. 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 a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).

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 a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 section.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 560 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(3) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017 on all waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin bounded by the arc of a circle with a 840-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in position 46°46′14″ N., 092°06′16″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (218) 529-3100.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Duluth or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (218) 529-3100.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the maritime fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 420 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 420 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. 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 a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

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 a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 420 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor; Buffalo, NY within a 560-foot radius of position 42°52′10.75″ N., 078°52′56.01″ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. 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 a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).

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 a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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

On May 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY § 165.T09-0331. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this high speed boat race. The comment period ended June 16, 2017; we received no comments.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the event. The event has been publicized in the local media and previously in the Federal Register through issuance of the NPRM; the public does not need time to make preparations for this rule to go into effect.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a high speed boat races present significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include vessels reaching high speeds in a relatively small area and large wake. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the boat races are taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on June 22 and June 23, 2017, from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. daily. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W. then West to 42°52′15″ N. and 078°53′32″ W. then South to 42°51′41″ N. and 078°53′02″ W. then East to 42°51′46” N. and 078°52′45″ W. (NAD 83) then returning to the point of origin.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. 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 a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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 is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone will have built in times to allow vessels to travel through when races are not being held. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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.

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

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

Section 184(b) of the CAA requires Rhode Island to implement RACT for all major sources of VOCs and all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted RACT Approval File No. 01-05-AP as a SIP revision for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. RACT Approval File No. 01-05-AP was originally issued to TPI Composites Incorporated (currently owned and operated by US Watercraft, LLC) in Warren, Rhode Island. The RACT Approval was received by EPA on August 8, 2003, and amended shortly thereafter. The amendment was received by EPA on February 20, 2004.

US Watercraft, LLC is located at 373 Market Street, Warren, Rhode Island, and operates two fiberglass process areas that emit VOCs: Fiberglass production; and Research and Development (R&D). The RI DEM RACT Approval replaced the requirements in the original 1990 RACT Consent Agreement, File No. 90-1-AP, which EPA approved on August 31, 1990 (55 FR 35623). RI DEM issued the updated RACT Approval for this facility to reflect technological advances in the fiberglass manufacturing industry as well as to correct and clarify requirements contained in the consent agreement. The RACT Approval control strategy was revised to include the Seemann Composite Resin Infusion Molding Process (SCRIMP), a closed molding process, and VOC limitations on gel coats and resins used to limit VOC emissions from the operations performed at the facility. In addition, the updated Approval provides for enhanced recordkeeping to track VOC emissions from the facility. Specifically, the submitted amendment to the RACT Approval restricts US Watercraft when applying vinyl ester resin to using the closed molding process or using a roller, except that US Watercraft may apply vinyl ester resin by spray layup for corrosion proof laminate, as is the case with the consent agreement currently in the SIP. Additionally, the updated RACT Approval prohibits the use of VOC solvents for cleanup, whereas the consent agreement currently in Rhode Island's SIP allows solvents containing VOCs to be used on a limited basis for cleaning activities. Since the RACT Approval and its amendment are no less stringent than the previously-approved consent agreement, and in some instances are more stringent, the anti-back sliding requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA are met. Therefore, EPA is approving the new RACT Approval and amendment for US Watercraft, LLC.

It should be noted that subsequent to RI DEM's submittal of its SIP revision and amendment for US Watercraft in 2003 and 2004, respectively, EPA later issued a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). RI DEM has not yet addressed this CTG. On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA issued a Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Rhode Island's failure to submit a SIP revision to satisfy the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.

At this time, EPA is taking no action with regard to Rhode Island's obligation to address the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials since Rhode Island has not yet taken formal action to address this CTG. In this action, we are approving the revised RACT Approval for US Watercraft as meeting the section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirement of the CAA and incorporating it into the SIP as SIP-strengthening. Rhode Island is still obligated to submit a formal SIP revision to EPA detailing how the state is addressing the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG for any and all sources in the state covered by that CTG.

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, a RACT Approval effective July 16, 2003, and a RACT Approval amendment effective February 11, 2004, for US Watercraft, LLC (formerly known as TPI Composites or Tillotson-Pearson). EPA is also removing the previously approved consent agreement for this facility from the Rhode Island SIP.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 1, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 2, 2017.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. 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.

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 the RACT Approval for US Watercraft, LLC described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact 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 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and 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). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 September 1, 2017. 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).)

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

On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 2013, EPA designated the first set of areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS, including the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas in Florida. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective October 4, 2013, which triggered a requirement for Florida to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA sections 191-192. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015, in this case. Section 192 requires that such plans shall provide for NAAQS attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of the nonattainment designation. Section 172(c) of part D of the CAA lists the required components of a nonattainment plan submittal. The base year emissions inventory (section 172(c)(3)) is required to show a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory” of all relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The nonattainment plan must identify and quantify any expected emissions from the construction of new sources to account for emissions in the area that might affect reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment, or that might interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and it must provide for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program (section 172(c)(5)). The attainment demonstration must include a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide for reasonable further progress (RFP) and expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (section 172(c)(2), (4), (6) and (7)). The nonattainment plan must include an analysis of the reasonably available control measures (RACM) considered, including reasonably available control technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)). Finally, the nonattainment plan must provide for contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented either in the case that RFP toward attainment is not made, or in the case that the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.

On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (SO2 Nonattainment Guidance). The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides recommendations for the development of SO2 nonattainment SIPs to satisfy CAA requirements (see, e.g., section 172 and 191-192). An attainment demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also provides states with the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

Florida submitted attainment demonstrations for both Areas on April 3, 2015. On August 23, 2016, EPA proposed to approve Florida's April 3, 2015, SO2 attainment demonstrations, which included all the specific attainment elements mentioned above and new SO2 emission limits with averaging times longer than the 1-hour form of the primary SO2 NAAQS for the Mosaic-Riverview fertilizer plant and the Tampa Electric Company's (TECO's) Big Bend electric generating source impacting the Hillsborough Area, and for Rayonier sulfite pulp mill and WestRock CP, LLC kraft pulp mill sources impacting the Nassau Area in accordance with the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. See 81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535. Comments on the proposed rulemakings were due on or before September 23, 2016. EPA received three sets of comments on the proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area, and one set of comments on the proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP for the Nassau Area. The comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the comments and responses are provided below. For a comprehensive discussion of Florida's SO2 attainment SIP and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval for both Areas, please refer to the August 23, 2016, proposed rulemakings. The remainder of this preamble summarizes EPA's final approval of Florida's SO2 attainment demonstrations for both areas and response to comments.

The three sets of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area were from the Arizona Mining Association (AMA), Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, INC. (FCG), and Tampa Electric Company (TECO). The single set of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Nassau Area was received from the AMA. EPA will refer to the AMA, FCG, and TECO Commenters collectively as “the Commenter(s).” Notably, the Commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed approvals of Florida's SO2 SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. Additionally, the Commenters also provided other related comments for which EPA is taking the opportunity to respond in this final rulemaking. To review the complete sets of comments received, refer to the dockets for this rulemaking as identified above. A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter references a revised study conducted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated January 2016 which asserts that AERMOD over-predicts at the level of the standard when compared to actual monitored data. IDEM's study compared predicted and observed SO2 concentrations at the Gibson Power Plant in southwestern Indiana. The Commenter claims that the IDEM's study showed AERMOD may “grossly over-estimate site specific monitoring data.” The Commenter states that the study assessed model-predicted ambient concentrations at the monitor receptor points and compared it to actual hourly monitor concentrations. The Commenter argues that the study showed that when the projected SO2 concentrations were 35 ppb or higher, AERMOD over-predicted ambient impacts by more than a factor of two in nearly 84 percent of the cases based on offsite meteorological conditions and in nearly 25 percent of the cases when onsite meteorology was considered. The Commenter also asserts that AERMOD under-predicted the actual site monitored data in less than 1 percent of the cases. The Commenter concludes that the IDEM study suggests that TECO's modeled allowable limit at Big Bend station is likely over-estimated.

Response 1: First, EPA believes that the Commenter's objection is not germane to our proposed approval of the Florida SIP, and raises objections that are both outside the scope of our approval action and not averse to it. Second, EPA notes that the IDEM modeling study is a seriously flawed analysis and disagrees that it indicates poor model performance by AERMOD as a general matter. Most notably, the report compares modeled SO2 levels expressed in μg/m3 against monitored values expressed in ppb. EPA made IDEM aware of the discrepancy in concentration units in fall 2015. A more appropriate assessment of this model-monitor comparison, as discussed, for example, in an article in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association by Kali Frost of IDEM, published April 9, 2014, shows that AERMOD results match monitoring data relatively closely. Also, as part of the proposed revisions to The Guideline on Air Quality Modeling in 2015 and finalized in 2016, EPA performed an evaluation on the use of prognostic meteorological data for input into AERMOD. Part of this evaluation included the same Gibson study as in the Frost 2014 paper and the IDEM study. As with the Frost 2014 paper, the results of the EPA evaluation indicated good model performance for AERMOD. The evaluation can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document, Evaluation of Prognostic Meteorological Data in AERMOD Applications (EPA-454/R-16-004). Additionally, the Commenter does not offer any specific technical evidence or documentation that the attainment modeling for the Hillsborough Area over predicts estimated site monitoring concentration nor explains how the SO2 characterization of the area in the IDEM study applies to the Hillsborough Area. Furthermore, notwithstanding stated concerns about the model, the Commenter concludes that the SO2 emission limits established for the TECO Big Bend Station are “appropriate to ensure attainment with SO2 NAAQS and provides the operational flexibility to ensure a reliable power supply to the Tampa Bay area.” EPA agrees that the modeling conducted for Florida's attainment plan submission provided results that support the emission limitations developed by the state for the particular sources at issue in this action.

Comment 2: The Commenters state that EPA did not explicitly clarify its legal authority to approve the Florida attainment plan SIP submissions with longer-term averaging times for emission limits for the Rayonier and WestRock sources in the Nassau Area; and Mosaic and TECO facilities in the Hillsborough Area. The Commenters suggest EPA clearly explain the legal authority under which it can approve the longer term emission limitations contained in the proposed attainment SIPs for each respective area as well as update the 2014 nonattainment guidance with additional analysis to support the “probabilistic” approach to developing such emission limits. The Commenters, nevertheless, agreed with EPA that it is appropriate to approve SO2 emission limitations with a 30-day averaging period and a 24-hour averaging period for the TECO and Mosaic facilities, respectively, as part of the Hillsborough Area 1-hour SO2 attainment SIP. The Commenters also agreed with EPA that it is appropriate to approve SO2 emission limitations with a 3-hour averaging period for both the Rayonier and WestRock facilities as part of the Nassau Area 1-hour SO2 attainment SIP. The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plan with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a “reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with the purposes of the CAA.” The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach is “scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.” The Commenters believe that the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value because both are determined by the same air modeling approach and calculated to be comparably stringent and provide for operational flexibility to ensure a reliable production of electricity.

Response 2: EPA appreciates the Commenter's observation regarding the appropriateness of approving attainment plans with emission limitations that apply over a longer time period than the 1-hour form of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As mentioned above, CAA section 172(c) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted attainment plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all control strategies in attainment plans reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. See “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble), at 13567-68. Additional guidance is provided in the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. For SO2, there are generally two components needed to support an attainment determination submitted under section 172(c): (1) Emission limitations and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that these emission limitations and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limitations and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limitations and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limitations must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

In the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance EPA notes that past Agency guidance has recommended that averaging times in SIP emissions limitations should not exceed the averaging time of the applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to help attain (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limitations with longer averaging times of up to 30 days, so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states elect to use longer averaging times—the longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of the use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's attainment plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C and D.

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single exceedance of the numerical limit of 75 ppb does not constitute a violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set longer term average could cause exceedances, and if so the resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular whether EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term average limit will provide that the average fourth highest daily maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of EPA's review of how to judge whether such plans “provide for attainment,” based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS' form for determining attainment at monitoring sites, follows.

For plans for SO2 attainment based on 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment (i.e., in an “average year” 1 shows three, not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the “critical emission value.” The modeling process for identifying this critical emission value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limitation at this critical emission value.

EPA recognizes that some sources may have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the critical emission value, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the critical emission value) and that takes the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.

As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily average 1-hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA found that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B, EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in sections 110(a) and 172(c) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emission value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

For these reasons, the Commenter's statement that “the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value” is not perfectly consistent with the EPA's position. Presuming that the Commenter means to speak of NAAQS violations rather than single exceedances of the level of the NAAQS, the use of longer-term limits creates an arguable (albeit minimal) risk of violations that nominally does not exist with short-term limits, even though compliance with an appropriately adjusted longer-term limit is likely to yield fewer exceedances of the level of the NAAQS than compliance with a short-term limit. Thus, the Commenter's statement misrepresents EPA's rationale for approving the longer-term average limits in Florida's plans as providing for attainment.

The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.2 The guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.

Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W). 3 In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment (i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.

The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on “Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (U.S. EPA, 2010a).

The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plans with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a “reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with the purposes of the CAA.” The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach is “scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.”

Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the longer average limits established for Rayonier and WestRock in the Nassau Area and Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area provide for a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for these sources. Florida used a suitable data profile in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding emission limits that have comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the longer-term averaging limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limits compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. See FL DEP's April 4, 2015 attainment SIPs for both areas in the docket for this final action (EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624 & EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623).

Comment 3: The Commenter makes several statements regarding the use of emissions limitations with longer averaging periods as a means of addressing emissions from sources during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) activities. The commenter states that during periods of operating variability, including startup and shutdown, there is a possibility of short periods of SO2 emissions that would be greater than the critical emission value, but the commenter claims that due to their relatively short duration, infrequent occurrence, and the low probability of such periods occurring simultaneously with unfavorable meteorological conditions, these emissions would be very unlikely to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. The Commenter further asserts that recent court decisions requiring continuous compliance with emission limitations, without exemptions for emissions during SSM events 4 and without affirmative defenses for excess emissions during SSM events,5 do not affect EPA's authority to allow emission limitations with longer averaging periods in attainment plans. The Commenter also argues that a single, continuous emission limitation that applies to the facility at all times, but with a longer term average as in this case, provides for “more coherent compliance procedures” than other approaches such as different emission limitations or work practice standards that apply only during startup and shutdown periods. The Commenter asserts that EPA's approval of an emission limitation with a longer-term averaging period is the only practical way to implement the requirement for continuous compliance given the reality that sources vary in their operation during the course of a full year.

Response 3: EPA agrees with the Commenter that the Agency can approve emission limitations that are based on averaging times that are longer than the 1-hour form of the SO2 NAAQS, provided that they have been demonstrated to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and that they meet other requirements for valid SIP provisions. As explained in the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, if periods of hourly emissions above the critical emissions value are a rare occurrence at a source, and particularly if the magnitude of the emissions, in terms of the emissions rate for each hour in that period, is not substantially higher than the critical emissions value, those periods would be unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, insofar as they would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times when the meteorology is conducive to high ambient concentrations of SO2. EPA also notes that the Agency has provided the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance to assist states and tribes specifically in the development of attainment plans to address specific issues and challenges relevant to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. In this final action, EPA is approving SIP provisions that impose emission limitations with longer term averaging periods because SO2 is a pollutant having characteristics that allow this approach to ensuring attainment of the primary 1-hour standard, as discussed above. EPA continues to believe that the use of longer term averages will not be necessary for sources whose emissions exhibit a low degree of variability and also notes that the approach is not necessarily transferable to other sources, pollutants, or NAAQS with different forms. EPA also notes that the appropriate duration of an averaging period in a SIP provision must take into consideration factors such as the nature of the regulated sources, the purpose of the emission limitation in the SIP provision, and the adequacy of the recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements necessary to make the emission limitation practically and legally enforceable. For example, a longer averaging period may require continuous emissions monitoring (CEMs) in order to provide adequate monitoring of emissions, as is the case in the SO2 emission limitations at issue in this action.

However, the issue of whether the use of a longer term average limit is the only way under which sources could meet the 1-hour NAAQS and account for variability during startup and shutdown periods is not raised by Florida's SIP submittals, and EPA need not reach a conclusion on that issue here in approving Florida's SIP submittals.

Pursuant to CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plan SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is approving SO2 emission limitations and compliance parameters established by the state applicable to the Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Riverview plant and TECO's Big Bend electric generating facility for the Hillsborough Area; and the Rayonier sulfite pulp mill and WestRock CP, LLC kraft pulp mill for the Nassau Area. The state determined that controls for SO2 emissions at Rayonier (i.e. increasing the stack height from the existing level of 110 feet to at least 165 feet for vent gas scrubber EU 005) are appropriate in the Nassau Area for purposes of attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and asserted that these controls represent RACM/RACT. Florida also proposed a supplemental control strategy for the WestRock facility including physical and operational changes to the four largest SO2 emitting units at the facility.6 For sources in the Hillsborough NAA, the state required by permit physical and operational changes to the three sulfuric acid plants (SAP) at the Mosaic facility including increased stack heights and upgrades to the SAP catalyst to meet the SO2 emission limit caps. Additionally, Mosaic is required to eliminate fuel oil use by January 1, 2018 except for periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption. For TECO, FL DEP required by permit that the facility undergo an operational change to increase the SO2 removal efficiencies of the existing flue gas desulfurization systems for its four fossil fuel-fired steam generators to meet the collective enforceable emission limit.

In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Florida attainment plan for both the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas includes: An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011) and a 2018 projected emissions inventory; and an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration for each Area includes: Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; a declaration that FL DEP is unaware of any future growth in the area that would be subject to CAA 173, and the assertion that the NNSR program approved in the SIP at Section 62-252.500, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) would account for any such growth; a modeling analysis utilizing an emissions control strategy for Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area, and Rayonier and WestRock in Nassau Area, that shows attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018, attainment date; a determination that the control strategies for the primary SO2 sources within the nonattainment area constitute RACM/RACT; adherence to a construction schedule to ensure emissions reductions are achieved as expeditiously as practicable; a request from FL DEP that emissions reduction measures including system upgrades and/or emissions limitations with schedules for implementation and compliance parameters be incorporated into the SIP; and contingency measures in the event the two Areas fail to make reasonable further progress or do not attain the SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.7 Lastly, FL DEP established new SO2 emission limits for the SO2 sources impacting the Hillsborough Area (i.e., Mosaic and TECO), and Nassau Area (i.e., Rayonier and WestRock), in accordance with EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. For the Nassau Area, FL DEP established new SO2 emission limitations for all three primary controlled units (EU 005, 006 and 022) based on a 3-hour rolling average. Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC), Rayonier will increase the stack height from the existing level of 110 ft to at least 165 ft for vent gas scrubber EU 005 and comply with specific SO2 emission limits based on a 3-hour rolling average as determined by CEMS data. SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by Rayonier's allowable SO2 emissions (total from sum of all three controlled units) will be reduced from 836.5 lb/hr to 502.3 lb/hr, representing a 40 percent decrease. The Rayonier emission limitations for all three controlled units were established in a federally-enforceable air construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC) and incorporated into the title V operating permit (No. 0890004-042-AV). These source specific requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP with this final action.

Based on the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890003-046-AC), WestRock will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by upgrading the combustion air system for recovery boilers, adding a white liquor scrubber system, and construction of a non-condensable gas pipeline to the No. 7 Power Boiler. WestRock's allowable SO2 emissions from EU 006, the power boiler No. 5, will be reduced from 550 lb/hr to 15 lb/hr representing a 97 percent decrease. These source specific requirements were included in a federally-enforceable permit and are being incorporated into the SIP through this final action. Compliance with the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by certified CEMs data.

Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570008-080-AC, Mosaic will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by eliminating the use of fuel oil at the plant except during periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption, changing the catalysts in the converters in sulfuric acid plants Nos. 7, 8, and 9 (which will lower SO2 emissions while not increasing sulfuric acid mist emissions; existing permitted production capacities of the sulfuric acid plants will remain unchanged); increase the stack height of each sulfuric acid plant to no lower than 65 meters (213.25 feet), which is equivalent to approximately a 60-foot increase per stack and comply with specific SO2 emissions caps based on a 24-hour average as determined by CEMs data. Mosaic's new SO2 emission limitations will reduce the allowable SO2 emissions from all three sulfuric acid plants collectively from 1140 lb/hr to a maximum of 575 lb/hr as a block 24-hour average. These emission limits cover various operating scenarios, including individual unit emissions limits, which remain unchanged from the current permit, along with two-unit and three-unit total limits. These new emission limitations were included in the federally-enforceable construction permit No. 0570008-080-AC and will be incorporated into the title V permit upon renewal. These requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP in this final action.

Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570039-074-AC, TECO will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by replacing existing fuel igniters and associated equipment to allow specified units to burn natural gas instead of fuel oil during startup, shutdown, and flame stabilization and comply with an SO2 emissions cap of 3,162 lbs/hour based on a 30-day rolling average for all fossil-fuel-fired electrical generating units (Units 1-4 combined). TECO's new combined allowable SO2 emissions from TECO EUs 001-004 will be reduced from 6587.6 lb/hr (based on total individual unit emission limits) to 3,162 lb/hr, representing a 52 percent decrease. TECO's new SO2 emission limit became effective June 1, 2016, as required in the federally-enforceable air construction permit (No. 0570039-074-AC), and is also being incorporated into the SIP in this final action. Compliance with the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by certified CEMs data.

EPA has determined that the attainment plans for SO2 for the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas meet the applicable requirements of sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plans for both Areas including the specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters established for the two SO2 point sources impacting the Nassau Area (Rayonier and WestRock) and the two sources affecting the Hillsborough Area (Mosaic and TECO). EPA's analysis of both attainment SIPs are discussed in detail in EPA's August 23, 2016, proposed rulemakings. See 81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535.

EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as the particular information in Florida's April 3, 2015, attainment SIP, the EPA believes, that the 24-hour and 30-day average limits for Mosaic and TECO respectively for the Hillsborough Area and the 3-hour average limit for WestRock and Rayonier in the Nassau Area provide for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Florida's SIP the specified, new operating parameters, SO2 emission caps, compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for emission units EU004, EU005 and EU006 at Mosaic (Permit No. 0570008-080-AC), EU001, EU002, EU003, EU004 at TECO (Permit No. 0570039-074-AC), EU005, EU006 and EU002 at Rayonier (Permit No. 0890004-036-AC) and EU006, EU015, EU007 and EU011 at WestRock (Permit No. 0890003-046-AC). The SO2 emission standards specified in each permit are the basis for the SO2 attainment demonstration in the SIP.

Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.8 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SO2 attainment plans for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. EPA has determined that both attainment SIPs meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is approving Florida's April 3, 2015, SIP submissions, which include the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for both nonattainment Areas. Additionally, EPA is approving into the Florida SIP specific SO2 emission limits with longer-term averaging times and operating and compliance parameters established for the two sets of SO2 point sources impacting the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas. EPA has concluded that Florida has appropriately demonstrated that attainment with the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS will occur in the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas by the applicable attainment dates, and that the plans meet the applicable requirements under sections 110, 172, and 191-192 of the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

The 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 September 1, 2017. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In accordance with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7410, each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409. SIPs contain numerous elements such as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Before formally adopting rules that contain required control measures and strategies as part of a SIP, each state must provide the public with an opportunity to comment on them. The states then submit these rules to EPA as requested SIP revisions, on which EPA must formally act.

If and when these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA after notice and comment rulemaking, they become enforceable by EPA, and are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and identified in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which has the same effect as including the entire state regulation in part 52. Incorporation by reference indicates that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date, and that EPA, in addition to the state, may enforce that regulation once it takes effect and is formally a part of the SIP. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which state measures are contained in a given SIP and are therefore federally enforceable. It also helps identify the specific requirements that the state is implementing to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

The SIP is periodically revised as necessary to address the specific or unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time takes action on state SIP submissions containing new and/or revised regulations and other materials; if approved, they become part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

As a result, EPA began the process of developing the following: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document.

The federally approved regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency and approved by EPA have been organized into a “SIP compilation.” The compilation is contained in three-ring binders and will be updated, primarily on an annual basis. The New Jersey SIP compilation is available at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office: 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007; (212) 637-4249.

Each SIP compilation contains three parts approved by EPA: Part one contains regulations, part two contains source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions. Each state's SIP compilation contains a table of identifying information for each of these three parts. In this action, EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the applicable SIP requirements for New Jersey. The effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent state revision of each regulation. The EPA Region 2 Office has the primary responsibility for updating the compilation and ensuring its accuracy.

EPA's Region 2 Office developed and will maintain the compilation for New Jersey. A copy of the full text of New Jersey's regulatory and source-specific compilations will also be maintained at NARA.

In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify which provisions are the enforceable elements of the SIP. The revised Identification of plan section contains five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA-approved regulations, (d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements, and (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutes, control strategies, and monitoring networks.

All revisions to the applicable SIP become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable Identification of plan section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.

To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP compilation, EPA has retained the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new table format and will decide whether or not to retain the historical Identification of plan appendices for some further period.

This rule constitutes a reformatting exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs and accompanying SIP that have already occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are subject to the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish its proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide for public comment before approval.

EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA. This rule simply reorganizes and codifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Accordingly, we find that public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” under section 553 of the APA, since the reorganization and codification of the revised format for denoting IBR of the state materials into the SIP only reflects existing law and since immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations from the CFR.

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 the New Jersey regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov, NARA, and the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Under the Clean Air Act (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” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

The 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).

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

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

On July 1, 2011, FDEP submitted to EPA for approval a SIP revision that involves changes to Florida's regulations related to permitting and administrative procedures, among other changes. In this action, EPA is approving the portions of the Florida submission that make changes to definitions affecting the major New Source Review (NSR) program, changes to other miscellaneous definitions, and administrative changes to Florida's NSR PAL provisions and SBA program. Florida's NSR program, which applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C and part D of title I of the CAA, is modified with this direct final action at Rule 62-210.200, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), “Definitions,” and 62-212.720, “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).” EPA is also approving miscellaneous changes to definitions. Finally, EPA is approving the portion of the July 1, 2011, submission that revises Rule 62-210.220, “Small Business Assistance Program,” which provides for compliance assistance for qualifying small business stationary sources.

Changes in the July 1, 2011, submission made to Rule 62-212.400, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” were approved on June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35862). The June 15, 2012, final rule also approved the NSR definition of “major modification,” at Rule 62-210.200(186) included in the July 1, 2011, SIP submission.

At this time, the Agency is not acting on the following changes included in the July 1, 2011, submission at Rule 62-210.200, “Definitions”: (28), “animal crematory,” (41), “biological waste,” (42), “biological waste incinerator,” (44), “biomedical waste,” and (158), “human crematory.” EPA is also not acting on the changes made to rules in Chapter 62-296, “Stationary Sources—Emission Standards,” included in the July 1, 2011, submission. EPA will consider these remaining portions of the July 1, 2011, submission in a separate action.

This direct final action will update Florida's definitions and make changes to rules approved into the SIP. Changes made to definitions are related to basic definitions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors and minor edits to permitting and NSR terms. Definitions are also partly renumbered with the July 1, 2011, submission. The changes made to the regulations, other than definitions, are administrative in nature, including updating internal references.

Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision makes changes to definitions for criteria air pollutants and their precursors. Florida adds a definition at Rule 62-210.200(211) for “nitrogen oxides” to be consistent with EPA regulations, referencing test methods at 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60 (40 CFR part 60). The July 1, 2011, SIP submittal revises the definition of “PM10,” or “particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers,” at Rule 62-210.200(235), renumbered from (221), correcting a typographical error to reference EPA test methods at 40 CFR part 51, subpart M. Finally, the July 1, 2011, SIP revision changes the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” at Rule 62-210.200(326), renumbered from (306). This change for VOC incorporates the federal definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by reference rather than requiring the State to periodically incorporate individual changes to the federal definition. These changes to definitions became state effective on October 12, 2008.

The July 1, 2011, SIP revision made changes to definitions related to NSR to correct typographical errors, to make internal references consistent, renumber definitions, and make minor administrative edits. Florida changed the definition of “best available control technology,” at Rule 62-210.200(40), by correcting a typographical error carried over from a previous revision. No substantive change was made to the SIP-approved definition, and the minor edits became state effective on October 12, 2008. The July 1, 2011, SIP revision also changed the definition of “federally enforceable,” at Rule 62-210.200(136), renumbered from (124), to clarify citations to rules under which federally enforceable permits are issued or were historically issued. This change to “federally enforceable” became state effective on February 11, 1999. Florida also revised the definition of “modification” at Rule 62-210.200(199), renumbered from (183), to remove references to non-SIP related uses of the term. In addition to removing references to 40 CFR part 60 (New Source Performance Standards), 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), and CAA section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants), a reference to 40 CFR part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) is removed from this definition. However, the remaining portion of the SIP-approved definition is nonetheless consistent with the definition as used under 40 CFR part 52. This change became state effective on February 11, 1999. The Florida submittal revises the definition of “net emissions increase” at Rule 62-210.200(204), renumbered from (179) and state effective on October 12, 2008, to correct typographical errors and to remove numbered citations to other definitions within Rule 62-210.200, adding explicit references for “actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” within the definition instead. No substantive changes are made to the definition of “net emissions increase.” Florida also modifies the definition of “regulated air pollutant” at Rule 62-210.200(255), renumbered from (237), to make an administrative edit that corrected “any volatile organic compound” to “volatile organic compounds” to be consistent with EPA use of the collective term. This change to “regulated air pollutant” became state effective on October 12, 2008. Finally, the July 1, 2011, submittal revises the definition of “significant impact” at Rule 62-210.200(275), renumbered from (253) and state effective on November 13, 1997, to correct a typographical error. Florida's definition of “significant impact” largely corresponds with EPA's provisions for significant impact levels (SILs) for pollutants impacting nonattainment areas at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), but Florida includes a SIL for lead, which has never been included in the federal provision. With this SIP revision, Florida is removing SILs under lead for 1-hour periods and 8-hour periods, which were carried over in error from the carbon monoxide SIL, as well as an additional typographical error. No substantive change is made to the SIP-approved definition.

EPA is approving these changes to definitions in the Florida SIP, which became state effective at the following dates as described above: November 13, 1997, February 11, 1999, and October 12, 2008. The renumbering of definitions, which is the final change to Rule 62-210.200 included in the SIP revision, became state effective on March 11, 2010.

The July 1, 2011, submittal makes changes to Florida's SBA program at Rule 62-210.220(2)(c) by updating obsolete references to State rules and updating the reference to Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. The SBA program previously referenced Florida Chapter 62-103, “Rules of Administrative Procedure,” for sources responding to determinations or petitioning for determinations to be included in the SBA program. The State adopted new rules at Chapter 28-106, “Decisions Determining Substantial Interests,” on April 1, 1997. The new Chapter repealed Rule 62-103 and made these types of administrative procedures standard across all Florida state agencies. The SIP revision is administrative in nature and became state effective on February 11, 1999. EPA is approving this change to make references to State rules consistent in the SIP.

The July 1, 2011, submittal revises the PAL provisions only to correct an error at Rule 62-212.720(1). The introductory paragraph affected previously referenced a non-existent definition at Rule 62-210.200, and the reference was deleted. This revision is administrative in nature and became state effective on October 6, 2008. EPA is approving this change into the Florida SIP.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C. entitled “Definitions,” effective March 11, 2010, to add definitions and make administrative updates, Rule 62-210.220, F.A.C., entitled “Small Business Assistance Program,” effective October 6, 2008, to correct internal references, and Rule 62-210.720, F.A.C., entitled “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs),” which corrects an error effective December 17, 2013.1 Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they are consistent with the CFR and the CAA. Because these changes are administrative and insignificant in nature, they are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 1, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 2, 2017.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. 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, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 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, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:

• Are 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);

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

• are 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.);

• do 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);

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

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

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

• are 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

• do 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 September 1, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

On December 27, 2016 (81 FR 95074), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval (LA/LD) or a full approval (as noted in the table) of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP.

We proposed a full approval of Rules 1-130, 1-200 and 1-230 because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We proposed a limited approval of Rule 1-220 because we determined that the rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval of Rule 1-220 because some rule provisions conflict with part C of the Act. These provisions include the following:

A. Rule 1-220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W; therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) have not been meet.

B. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) have not been met because the rule does not include the necessary information about a source's obligations.

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Rule 1-220 and a full approval of Rules 1-130, 1-200 and 1-230. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule 1-220.

As a result, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule within 24 months. EPA staff are coordinating with Mendocino County AQMD and expect resolution of the deficiencies before a FIP would be required.

In addition, because we are finalizing our proposed action, the California Infrastructure SIP deficiencies identified in our April 2016 (81 FR 18766) rulemaking with respect to Mendocino County AQMD for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are remedied. Therefore, we are updating the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP accordingly.

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 the MCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (Air -3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

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.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 September 1, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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