Federal Register Vol. 82, No.131,

I. Background

On August 31, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published the International Entrepreneur Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. See 81 FR 60129. On January 17, 2017, DHS published the International Entrepreneur Final Rule (the IE Final Rule) in the Federal Register. The effective date is July 17, 2017. See 82 FR 5238.

The IE Final Rule amended DHS regulations to include criteria that would guide the implementation of the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretionary case-by-case parole authority as applied to international entrepreneurs. Specifically, it applied to international entrepreneurs who can demonstrate that their parole into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. In accordance with the final rule's criteria, such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. In addition to defining criteria for the favorable exercise of the Secretary's discretionary parole authority, the IE Final Rule established a period of initial parole stay of up to 30 months (which may be extended by up to an additional 30 months) to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States.

On January 25, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, prescribing improvements to border security and immigration enforcement. See 82 FR 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017). Section 11(d) of the E.O. requires the DHS Secretary to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

After review of E.O. 13767, DHS decided to delay the effective date of the IE Final Rule, to further consider it in light of E.O. 13767. The new effective date for the IE Final Rule, with one minor exception, is March 14, 2018. Additionally, DHS will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public comments on the proposal to rescind the IE Final Rule. The delayed effective date will provide an opportunity for the notice and comment rulemaking to take place.

As indicated above, DHS is not delaying the effective date with respect to one provision in the IE Final Rule. In the IE Final Rule, DHS revised 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2) to add the Department of State Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) to the regulatory text and to the “List C” listing of acceptable documents for Form I-9 verification purposes. See 82 FR 5238, 5241 & n.3. As part of the IE Final Rule, DHS also revised the accompanying form instructions to reflect this change. As this provision is unrelated to entrepreneur parole under the IE Final Rule, this one provision will go into effect on July 17, 2017, as originally provided.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue a rule without notice and comment upon a showing of good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The APA's good cause exception to public participation applies upon a finding that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

DHS has good cause to forego notice and comment rulemaking to delay the effective date for the implementing provisions of the IE Final Rule, because notice and comment rulemaking would be contrary to the public interest. For the same reason, DHS has good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date. DHS, however, is nevertheless soliciting post-promulgation public comments on the decision to delay the IE Final Rule.

Undertaking notice and comment rulemaking to delay the IE Final Rule is contrary to the public interest for multiple reasons. If DHS does not delay the effective date immediately, USCIS would be required to expend limited agency resources to implement the IE Final Rule. Those resources are otherwise needed for USCIS to effectively and efficiently carry out its many existing immigration benefit programs facilitating lawful migration into United States. For example, implementing the program would require USCIS to establish a new business line for the processing of entrepreneur parole applications, hiring and training additional adjudicators, modifying intake and case management information technology systems, modifying application and fee intake contracts, developing guidance for the adjudicators, and communicating with the public. Given that DHS will be proposing to rescind the IE final rule, and may ultimately eliminate the program, the expenditure of these resources is unlikely to ever be recouped from filing fees under the new program. USCIS derives approximately 96 percent of its operating budget from fees, and would be required to absorb the costs of the IE program within its existing operating budget, possibly impacting efficiency and effectiveness in other programs. An inefficient use of limited resources is not conducive to the security and economic interests of the United States. Therefore, it is necessary for DHS to immediately suspend the effective date of the IE Final Rule.

Undertaking notice and comment rulemaking to delay the IE Final Rule while DHS considers rescinding the rule also would be contrary to the public interest for other reasons: doing so would sow confusion and would likely cause the waste of resources by multiple stakeholders with interests in this rulemaking. See generally Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (observing that exceptions to notice and comment, although construed narrowly, are designed for “situations where the policies promoted by public participation in rulemaking are outweighed by the countervailing considerations of effectiveness, efficiency, expedition and reduction in expense”) (quotation marks omitted). Courts have found “good cause” under the APA when an agency is moving expeditiously to eliminate uncertainty or confusion that, if left to linger, could cause tangible harm or hardship to the agency, the program, program users, or other members of the public. See Mid-Tex Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 822 F.2d 1123, 1133-34 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (agency had good cause to promote continuity and prevent “irremedial financial consequences” and “regulatory confusion”).

Allowing the IE Final rule to go into effect while the agency undertakes notice and comment rulemaking to delay its effective date in order to consider a rescission would lead the public to continue to rely on the rule. Such reliance would include expending significant effort and resources in order to establish eligibility under the criteria promulgated by the IE Final Rule. These criteria include establishing a start-up entity in the United States and demonstrating that the entity has secured significant U.S. capital investment or government funding. In the event the IE Final Rule is rescinded—which the Department believes is highly likely—individuals who satisfied these and other requirements of the IE Final Rule would quite possibly do so without being able to reap benefits from the rule. Therefore, providing notice and comment in this case is contrary to public interest.

This rule is not “significant” under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

DHS is delaying the effective date for all proposed changes to the Form I-131, I-765, and I-941, from July 17, 2017, to March 14, 2018. Proposed changes to the Form I-9, with the exception to those changes specific to IE parole, will be effective July 17, 2017.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. See Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995). This final rule involves a new information collection and makes revisions to the existing information collections as follows:

The IE Final Rule published on January 17, 2017, requires that an applicant requesting entrepreneur parole complete an Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941 which is a new information collection under the PRA. USCIS did receive one comment regarding the time burden of this form and, upon review of the work involved to review the form, gather necessary information to support the submission, and the time required to complete and submit the form, USCIS revised the estimated hour burden per response to 4.7 hours. The Form I-941 is being delayed until March 14, 2018.

a. Type of information collection: New information collection.

b. Abstract: If implemented, this collection would be used by individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals, other than those filing an application on the basis of a material change, would be subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.

c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941.

d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-941, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Businesses and other for profit; Not-for-profit Institutions.

f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 2,940.

g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-941 is 4.7 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the biometric processing is 1.17 hours.

h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 17,258 hours.

The IE Final Rule published by DHS on January 17, 2017 revised this information collection (i.e. Form I-131) by including spouses and children seeking parole on the basis of an entrepreneur parolee.

In addition to revising the form and form instructions, the IE Final Rule revised the estimate of total burden hours which had increased due to the addition of this new population of Application for Travel Document, Form I-131, filers, and the increase of burden hours associated with the collection of biometrics from these applicants. The changes made to Form I-131 are being delayed until March 14, 2018.

a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.

b. Abstract: If implemented, this collection would be used by dependents of individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals would be subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.

c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131.

d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Individuals or households.

f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 594,324.

The total number of respondents includes the additional population of 3,234 individuals as estimated previously in the analysis in Section IV.C.

g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-131 Supplement is 1.9 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the biometric processing is 1.17 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the passport-style photographs is .5 hours.

h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,372,928 hours.

In accordance with revised 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2), the IE Final Rule published on January 17, 2017 updated the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Lists of Acceptable Documents, List C and the Document Title table to reflect the most current version of the certification or report of birth issued by the Department of State, Form FS-240 Consular Report of Birth Abroad. DHS also made clarifying changes in the form instructions by removing “the end of” when describing the day on which Form I-9 completion is required and revising the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair employment Practices to its new name of Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. These changes to the Form I-9 will go into effect on July 17, 2017 as currently scheduled.

The changes made to Form I-9 and instructions associated with new 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(5) promulgated by the IE Final Rule are being delayed until March 14, 2018. Those changes concern the acceptable List A document described as the following: for an individual authorized to work for a specific employer because of his or her status or parole, a foreign passport and Form I-94 (or Form I-94A) that has the same name as the passport and has an endorsement by DHS indicating such employment-authorized status or parole, as long as the period of endorsement has not yet expired and the employment is not in conflict with the individual's employment-authorized status or parole. Specific changes to the form that are being delayed until March 14, 2018 also include revisions to the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, List A item 5 to replace “nonimmigrant alien” with “individual,” to replace “alien's nonimmigrant” with “individual,” and to add “or parole” after “status” in List A item 5.b.(2).

a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.

b. Abstract: This form was developed to facilitate compliance with section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. This information collection is necessary for employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee, and state employment agencies to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired (or recruited or referred for a fee, if applicable) for employment in the United States.

c. Title of Form/Collection: Employment Eligibility Verification.

d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-9, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; State, local or Tribal Government.

f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 78 million employers and 78 million individuals. (The total number of responses will be only 78 million responses. Each response involves an employer and an individual who is being hired.)

g. Hours per response:

□ Time Burden for Employees—10 minutes (.17 hours) total;

□ Time Burden for Employers—20 minutes (.33 hours) total;

□ Time Burden for Recordkeeping—5 minutes (.08 hours) total.

h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: approximately 40,600,000 total annual burden hours.

The IE Final Rule published on January 17, 2017 made minor revisions to the form instructions to reflect changes made by that rule that allow spouses of an entrepreneur parolee to request employment authorization. Those changes to Form I-765 are being delayed until March 14, 2018.

a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.

b. Abstract: If implemented, this collection would be used by individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals would be subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.

This form was developed for individual aliens to request employment authorization and evidence of that employment authorization. The form is being amended to add a new class of aliens eligible to apply for employment authorization, specifically a spouse of an entrepreneur parolee described as eligible for employment authorization under this rule. Supporting documentation demonstrating eligibility must be filed with the application. The form lists examples of relevant documentation.

c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765.

d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-765, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Individuals or households.

f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 2,139,523.

This total represents the aggregate estimate for this information collection, to include the additional estimate of 2,940 respondents under this rule.

g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-765 is 3.42 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for biometric processing is 1.17 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for Form I-765 WS is .5 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for passport-style photographs is .5 hours.

h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,985,859 hours.

Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Coverage Determination B. Test Procedure C. Questions Raised About Test Procedure D. Request for Information and Enforcement Forbearance II. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments III. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background A. Coverage Determination

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” EPCA provides that DOE may include a type of industrial equipment, including compressors, as covered equipment if it determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(i) and 6312(b)). The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of electric motors and pumps and certain other industrial equipment in order to conserve the energy resources of the Nation. (42 U.S.C 6312(a)) On November 15, 2016, DOE published a Notice of Final Determination of Coverage, classifying compressors as covered equipment. The final coverage determination became effective on December 15, 2016. 81 FR 79991.

DOE may develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314). Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making any representations regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s), 6316(a) and 6314(d)).

On January 4, 2017, DOE published a final rule to establish new test procedures for certain varieties of compressors. 82 FR 1052. The final rule established definitions, materials incorporated by reference, sampling plans, representations requirements, enforcement provisions and test procedures for certain varieties of compressors. The effective date of the test procedure rule was originally February 3, 2017—i.e., 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Effective on February 1, 2017, DOE temporarily postponed the effective date of its January 4th final rule. See 82 FR 8985 (February 2, 2017). On March 21, 2017, the effective date of the test procedure final rule was further extended to July 3, 2017, the date on which EPCA (through 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) requires compliance with that procedure. (82 FR 14426).

A number of small businesses have written DOE expressing concern about the economic burden of the test procedure rule (see e.g., submission from Compressed Air Systems (CAS) 1 ). They are concerned both about the cost of implementing the necessary changes to comply with the test procedure, as well as the cost of changing their informational literature to comply with the representation requirements. For example, Compressed Air Systems (CAS) has argued that DOE's cost estimates for the test procedure rule significantly under-estimated the cost the rule would impose and that when the DOE performed its financial impact analysis DOE failed to take into account a number of factors.

Further, CAS also has raised questions regarding implementation of the test procedure, specifically the application of the ancillary equipment required for testing in Table 1 and Table 2 of section B4 within appendix A to subpart T of part 431 (See 82 FR 1103.). CAS claims to need clarification on appropriate filters and drains necessary to conduct the required test, as well as information on the interaction between DOE's test requirements and regulations already in force issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (see data and information in docket).

DOE also received other comments pertaining to the compressor test procedure final rule both supporting the rule and voicing concerns about the rule, which can be viewed in the docket.

Given the issues raised by small businesses, DOE is requesting additional data and information regarding the cost of implementing the existing test procedure, whether the specific mechanics of implementing the existing test procedure are sufficiently clear, and issues, if any, with the interaction of the DOE test procedure with existing rules of other Federal agencies. DOE will not seek to enforce compliance of the test procedure final rule for a period of 180 days from the July 3, 2017, compliance date of the test procedure final rule, as DOE gathers the requested data and information and determines how it will choose to proceed with the existing test procedure in light of such data and information.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this request no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide 139 all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. See 10 CFR 429.7. It is DOE's policy that all comments be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this request for information.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 95-26-13, Amendment 39-9472 (60 FR 67321, December 29, 1995) (“AD 95-26-13”). AD 95-26-13 applied to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-151, PA-28-161, PA-28-160, PA-28-180, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28-236, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28S-160, PA-28S-180, PA-32-260, PA-32-300, PA-32-301, PA-32-301T, PA-32R-300, PA-32R-301 (SP), PA-32R-301 (HP), PA-32R-301T, PA-32RT-300, PA-32RT-300T, and PA-32S-300 airplanes equipped with oil cooler hose assemblies that do not meet technical standard order C53a (TSO-C53a) Type D requirements. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72742). The NPRM was prompted by several inquiries asking for clarification of the AD's applicability and compliance requirements. The NPRM proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 95-26-13 and add language to clarify those requirements. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

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

G. Fenton requested this unsafe condition be addressed through the Department of Commerce instead of the Federal Aviation Administration because the NPRM applied to airplanes used for commercial purposes.

We disagree with this comment because the Federal Aviation Administration is charged by Congress to provide for the safe and efficient use of national airspace by commercial and private airplane operators.

We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

G. Fenton requested we change the labor rate in the Cost of Compliance section to $72.50 per hour instead of $85 per hour. He thought the increased cost from $60 per hour from the 1995 AD to $85 per hour for this AD is unnecessary. He thought we should adjust the cost of the labor rate to a value between the two.

We disagree with this comment. The rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans for us to use when estimating the labor costs of complying with AD requirements.

We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

Jonathan Hartley requested we put all of the changes to this AD from AD 95-26-13 in a conspicuous location to reduce confusion and workload associated with compliance.

We partially agree with this comment. We agree there are instances where compliance confusion and workload could exist with the wording in the NPRM. However, we disagree with compiling the changes into one location because of formatting constraints in the AD structure.

We have made language changes to the regulatory text in the AD to clarify the compliance confusion and to reduce workload.

Jonathan Hartley requested we include in this AD an outline maintaining specific requirements for other types of oil cooler hoses.

We disagree with this comment. The unsafe condition addressed by this AD applies only to Type C and Type D oil cooler hoses. The requirements for maintaining other types of oil cooler hoses are not required to comply with the actions of this AD.

We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

George Ballard requested we include in the AD information explaining what constitutes a Type C and Type D hose assembly. He doesn't think the TSO adequately explains the difference between the Type C and Type D hose assemblies.

We disagree with this comment. The differences between the Type C and Type D hoses are provided in great detail in TSO-C53a and its referenced documents. This AD does not require that level of detail to comply with the inspections or corrective actions specified in the AD.

We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

Greg Dodson stated the requirement to inspect the oil cooler hose assembly installation for an oil cooler mounted in a location other than at or aft of the rear of the engine any time the oil cooler hose assembly is replaced conflicts with the installation of a Type D oil cooler hose assembly being terminating action for the AD.

We agree with this comment. The installation of the Type D oil cooler hose assembly terminates the requirement for the installation inspection.

We have changed the language in the AD to address the contradiction.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 23,643 airplanes of U.S. registry.

This AD retains the same actions as AD 95-26-13 and the costs do not add any cost burden than that already in effect by AD 95-26-13. The difference in the Costs of Compliance with this AD and AD 95-26-13 is that we use $85 an hour as a labor rate in 2016 as opposed to $60 per hour in 1995.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2016-264-E, dated December 22, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters. EASA advises of reports of broken screws that attach the cover of the hydraulic pump. A subsequent investigation identified a batch of screws delivered between July 1, 2015, and November 1, 2016, that have intrinsic embrittlement and reduced mechanical properties. Hydrogen was introduced into this batch of screws during production, causing the screws to become brittle and lack sufficient strength. These screws were installed in a batch of hydraulic pumps, part number (P/N) FR65WEO2005-175A, identified by certain serial numbers, EASA advises.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the failure of a cover bolt and loss of fluid from the hydraulic pump, resulting in loss of the hydraulic system and subsequent loss of helicopter control. As a result, EASA AD No. 2016-264-E requires replacing the hydraulic pumps.

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

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. SA330-29.12, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016 (Airbus EASB), for Model SA330J helicopters and military model SA330L, SA330Jm, SA330S1, and SA330Sm helicopters. The Airbus EASB specifies removing Nexter Mechanics hydraulic pumps P/N FR65WEO2005-175A with certain serial numbers. If both the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) hydraulic pumps have an affected P/N and serial number, the Airbus EASB specifies replacing the RH hydraulic pump before further flight and the LH hydraulic pump within 110 flying hours or 6 months. If only one hydraulic pump has an affected P/N and serial number, the Airbus EASB specifies replacing it within 110 flying hours or 6 months. The Airbus EASB also specifies that, for 6 months after receipt of the Airbus EASB, before installing an affected hydraulic pump it must be “returned to conformity” by complying with Nexter Mechanics Alert Service Bulletin No. NM/INGE/16-140, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016 (Nexter ASB). After 6 months or 110 flying hours, whichever occurs first, the Airbus EASB states the affected hydraulic pumps are unfit for flight.

This AD requires, within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS), removing the RH hydraulic pump if both hydraulic pumps are listed in the applicability section of this AD. This AD also prohibits installing an affected hydraulic pump on any helicopter.

The EASA AD requires replacing the LH hydraulic pump with a serviceable part within 110 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever comes first, if both the LH and RH hydraulic pumps are affected parts. The EASA AD also requires, if only one hydraulic pump is an affected part, replacing it with a serviceable part within 110 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever comes first. This AD makes no such requirements. We are considering requiring those actions. However, the planned compliance time for those actions would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment. The EASA AD allows a hydraulic pump to be installed if it has been repaired in accordance with the Nexter ASB, while this AD does not.

We estimate that this AD affects 24 helicopters and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that replacing a hydraulic pump requires 2 work-hours and parts cost $2,500 for a total cost of $2,670 per helicopter and $64,080 for the U.S. fleet.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 15 hours TIS, a very short time period based on the typical utilization rate of these helicopters in off-shore oil operations.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On January 5, 2017, at 82 FR 1260, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with an IGB fairing part number (P/N) 332A24-0303-05XX, 332A24-0303-06XX, 332A08-1391-00, or 332A08-1391-01 installed, where “XX” is any two alphanumeric characters. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the IGB fairing. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent the detachment of the angle section of an IGB and subsequent interference between an IGB fairing and tail rotor inclined drive shaft. This condition could result in failure of a tail rotor drive shaft, loss of the tail rotor drive, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0092, dated May 26, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Airbus Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with certain part-numbered IGB fairings installed. EASA advises of occurrences involving separation of the angle section of the IGB fairing from the IGB fairing gutter, which caused interference with the tail rotor (T/R) inclined drive shaft. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the T/R drive shaft, loss of the T/R drive, and consequent reduced control of the helicopter. To address this condition, EASA issued a series of ADs, including AD No. 2015-0092, to require repetitive inspections of the IGB fairing and its attachment supports and installation of a new IGB fairing, P/N 332A24-0322-00, as terminating action for the inspections.

An individual commented that he supports the NPRM.

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

The EASA AD requires replacing the IGB fairing with the composite fairing within 31 months. This AD requires this replacement within 150 hours time-in-service.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 5, dated March 9, 2015, which is one document with three different identification numbers. EASB No. 53.01.47 is for Model AS332C, C1, L, L1, L2, and military model B, B1, M, M1, and F1 helicopters. EASB No. 53.00.48 is for military Model AS532-series helicopters. EASB No. 53A001 is for Model EC225 LP and the military Model EC725AP helicopter. EASB Nos. 53.01.47 and 53A001 are incorporated by reference in this AD. EASB No. 53.00.48 is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

This service information specifies repetitive inspections of the IGB fairing, attachment supports, and fairing gutter. This service information also advises that IGB fairing P/Ns 332A24-0303-05XX, 332A24-0303-06XX, 332A08-1391-00, and 332A08-1391-01 are unfit for flight beginning December 1, 2017, and that these fairings should be replaced with a new composite fairing P/N 332A24-0322-00.

We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. AS332-53.01.78, Revision 0, dated March 9, 2015, for FAA type-certificated Model AS332C, C1, L, L1, and L2 helicopters and military Model AS332B, B1, F1, M, and M1 helicopters, and Airbus Helicopter Service Bulletin No. EC225-53-041, Revision 0, dated March 9, 2015, for the Model EC225LP helicopter. The service information specifies replacing each IGB fairing with a newly designed fairing. Airbus Helicopters identifies replacement of the IGB fairing under these service instructions as Modification 0726819.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 53.01.47, Revision 4, for Model AS332C, C1, L, L1, L2, and military model B, B1, M, M1, and F1 helicopters and EASB No. 53A001, Revision 4, for Model EC225 LP and the military Model EC725AP helicopters. Both EASBs are part of one document that is dated September 27, 2011. The EASBs introduce periodic maintenance on the fairings and on the fairing's attachment angles.

We estimate that this AD affects 11 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• Visually inspecting each IGB fairing and the left- and right-hand attachment supports for a crack require a 0.5 work-hour for a total cost of $43 per helicopter and $473 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

• Replacing the IGB fairing requires 2 work hours and parts cost $2,600, for a total cost of $2,770 per helicopter and $30,470 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing the attachment supports requires 2 work hours, and parts cost $1,100 for a total cost of $1,270 per helicopter.

• Visually inspecting for a crack in the fairing gutter requires 0.5 work hour for a total cost of about $43 per helicopter.

• Inspecting for interference and separation of the fairing gutter requires 0.5 work hour for a total cost of $43 per helicopter.

• Replacing the inclined drive shaft tube requires 2 work hours, and parts cost $18,399, for a total cost of $18,569 per helicopter.

• Replacing a hydraulic pipe requires 2 work hours, and parts cost $1,322, for a total cost of $1,492 per helicopter.

• Repairing the flight control assembly requires 2 work hours, and parts cost $484, for a total cost of $654 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is establishing a new special local regulation for nine recurring marine events in the Sector Columbia River. On May 9, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events in Sector Columbia River” (82 FR 21495). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the regulated areas. During the comment period that ended June 8, 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, due to The Big Float marine event occurring on July 15, 2017. This event was previously covered under a Temporary Final Rule. Delaying this rule would be impracticable due to the date of the event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River has determined that large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are expected to congregate around these event locations, and regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards associated with the event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 9, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The Coast Guard is revising and renaming 33 CFR 100.1302 to cover marine events within the Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River and removing §§ 100.1303 (Annual Kennewick, Washington, Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races), 100.1305 (Richland, Washington, west coast outboard championship hydro races), 165.1341 (Portland Dragon Boat Races, Portland, OR), and 165.1342 (Annual Roy Webster Cross-Channel Swim, Columbia River, Hood River, OR).

These changes convert two existing safety zones (those currently in §§ 165.1341 and 165.1342) and temporary safety zones established annually for four events (The Big Float, Swim the Snake, Richland Regatta, and Columbia Crossing) into regulated areas in § 100.1302. This will consolidate and simplify our existing special local regulations.

Additionally, this rule reorganizes and consolidates existing Sector Columbia River COTP Zone marine event regulations in 33 CFR part 100 and marine event safety zones under 33 CFR part 165. This action eliminates the burden and confusion caused by the current configuration of numerous individual regulations spread across two CFR parts.

As large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are expected to congregate around the event location, the regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards associated with the event. During the enforcement period of the regulated areas, persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or the designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas. These events are listed below in the text of the regulation.

Certain special local regulations are listed without known dates or times. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River will cause notice of the enforcement of these regulated areas to be made by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the effected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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.

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 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.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated areas. Vessels will only be restricted from special local regulation areas for a short duration of time. Vessels may transit in portions of the affected waterway except for those areas covered by the proposed regulated areas. Notifications of exact dates and times of the enforcement period will be made through notices of enforcements published in the Federal Register. In addition, we will inform the local maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or both. No new or additional restrictions would be imposed on vessel traffic.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas 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.

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 regulated areas for swim events and other marine events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:

SDOT, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate heavy pedestrian traffic crossing the bridge during the Lake Union 10K Run event. To facilitate this event, the double bascule draw of the bridge will not open for vessel traffic during the stated date and times. The Fremont Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31 feet of vertical clearance for the center 36 horizontal feet) in the close-to-navigation position. The clearance is referenced to the mean water elevation of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for the Fremont Bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.1051. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. No early Sunday morning bridge opening requests have been received during August for the Fremont Bridge in the last five years.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and 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 vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Multnomah County (bridge owner) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1 crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the Oregon Brewers' Parade event. To facilitate this event, the draw of this bridge will be allowed to be kept in the closed-to-navigation position to marine traffic from 11:30 a.m. to noon on July 26, 2017. The Hawthorne Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed-to-navigation position referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule is in 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(v). Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard provided notice of and requested objections to this deviation to local mariners via the Local Notice Mariners, and email. No objections were submitted to the Coast Guard.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 it is impracticable. After receiving and fully reviewing the event information, circumstances and exact location, the Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created during the Red Bull Flugtag event. It is impracticable to publish a NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 5, 2017, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and property from the dangers associated with the Red Bull Flugtag event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the Red Bull Flugtag event present a safety concern and that a safety zone is necessary on August 5, 2017. This rule is needed to provide for the safety of life and protection of vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards created from the Red Bull Flugtag event. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community of the proposed safety zone and enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM).

This rule establishes a safety zone on August 5, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Allegheny River 200 yards from the right descending bank mile marker 0.0 to mile marker 0.2. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from the Red Bull Flugtag event. 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 Order 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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone affects a small portion of these navigable waterways for a limited duration of six hours and still will not impede the channel allowing vessels to pass through. Due to the limited scope and short duration of the safety zone, the impact on routine navigation is expected to be minimal. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit the zone.

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 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 six hours that will prohibit entry on the Allegheny River 200 yards from the right descending bank mile 0.0 to mile 0.2 during the Red Bull Flugtag event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34 (g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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:

Rosa's Law (Pub. L. 111-256) amended sections of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), by removing the words “mental retardation” and replacing them with the words “intellectual disability” or “intellectual disabilities.” We are therefore revising applicable sections in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The following paragraphs describe the changes we are making to the regulations and the specific statutory changes on which the regulatory changes are based.

Statute: Rosa's Law amended the Rehabilitation Act by substituting “intellectual disability” for “mental retardation” in section 7(21)(A)(iii) (29 U.S.C. 705(21)(A)(iii)); substituting “intellectual disabilities” for “mental retardation” in section 204(b)(2)(C)(vi) (29 U.S.C. 764(b)(2)(C)(vi)); and substituting “President's Disability Employment Partnership Board and the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities” for “President's Committees on Employment of People With Disabilities and on Mental Retardation” in section 501(a) (29 U.S.C. 791(a)).

Regulations: We have substituted “intellectual disability” for “mental retardation” and “having an intellectual disability” for “mentally retarded” in the following definitions:

We have also substituted “intellectual disability” for “mental retardation” in Appendix A to part 104.

Reasons: We have made these regulatory revisions to implement the changes made to the Rehabilitation Act by Rosa's Law.

Statute: Rosa's Law amended the IDEA by substituting “intellectual disabilities” for “mental retardation” in sections 601(c)(12)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(12)(C)) and 602(3)(A)(i) and (30)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A)(i) and (30)(C)).

Regulations: We have revised Appendix F to 34 CFR part 300 and the following sections in title 34 to remove references to “mental retardation” and add, in their place, references to an “intellectual disability”: §§ 300.8(a)(1), (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(10)(ii); 300.309(a)(3)(ii); and 300.311(a)(6). Additionally, in § 300.8(c)(6), we have replaced the defined term “mental retardation” with the defined term “intellectual disability.”

Reasons: We have made these regulatory revisions to implement the changes made to the IDEA by Rosa's Law.

Statute: Rosa's Law amended section 760(2)(A) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1140(2)(A)) by removing the words “mental retardation or.”

Regulations: We have revised 34 CFR 668.231(b)(1) to remove the reference to “mental retardation or” and revised 34 CFR 674.51(l)(1) to remove the words “mentally retarded” and add, in their place, the words “individuals with intellectual disabilities.”

Reasons: We have made these regulatory revisions to implement the changes made to the HEA by Rosa's Law.

Statute: Rosa's Law amended the ESEA by substituting “intellectual disabilities” for “mental retardation” in section 7202(16)(E) (20 U.S.C. 7512(16)(E)).

Regulations: We have revised the authority section to 34 CFR part 222 and also the authority section for 34 CFR 222.50 to include a citation to Rosa's Law.

Reasons: Section 222.50 incorporates by reference the definition of “child with a disability” in 34 CFR 300.8. To account for the fact that we are amending 34 CFR 300.8 in this rulemaking, we have also revised the relevant authority sections in part 222 accordingly.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2017, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The final regulations are not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

With respect to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the amendments we are making through this rulemaking merely change the terminology used in our regulations, and they do not change any substantive requirements. Additionally, this rulemaking merely implements the changes that are required by statute.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations merely reflect statutory changes and do not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.

These regulations are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Based on our own review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 104, 105, 222, 300, 361, 373, 385, 668, and 674 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012, and 77 FR 34221, June 11, 2012). The Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI and St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL areas were designated as marginal nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI was reclassified from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697).

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal and above to submit revisions to their SIPs to require the owner or operator of each stationary source of NOX or VOC to provide the state with an annual statement documenting the actual emissions of NOX and VOC from their source. Under section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), a state may waive the emissions statement requirement for any class or category of stationary sources which emits less than 25 tons per year of VOC or NOX if the state, in its base year emissions inventory, provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources. States and EPA have generally interpreted this waiver provision to apply to sources (without specification of a specific source class or source category) emitting less than 25 tons per year of VOC or NOX.

Many states, including Illinois, adopted emissions statement rules for stationary sources in nonattainment areas under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved as part of each state's SIP. In cases where an existing emission statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval in the SIP to meet the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B). See 80 FR 12264, 12291 (March 6, 2015).

IEPA submitted a proposed SIP revision on May 9, 2017 certifying that the previously SIP-approved emissions statement regulations meet the emissions statement requirement for areas designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard pursuant to Sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. In its submission, IEPA stated that it has information collection authority under Section 4 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and that IEPA collects NOX and VOC emission statements under 35 IAC Part 254, titled “Annual Emissions Report,” which applies to any source located in an ozone nonattainment area that has the potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of VOC or NOX from all emission units during the reporting year. IEPA further stated that these regulations also apply to permitted smaller sources which are required to submit and certify source-wide totals of actual emissions from all regulated air pollutants emitted. Finally, IEPA confirmed that in general, facilities subject to part 254 must submit actual emissions data for NOX and VOC on an annual basis, and must certify that the information provided is accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge.

EPA approved the “Annual Emissions Report” rules into the Illinois SIP on May 15, 2002 (67 FR 34614). Based on this approval and IEPA's certification, the regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code part 254 are sufficient to meet the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, IEPA's certification that Illinois' “Annual Emissions Report” rules at 35 IAC part 254 meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) under the 2008 ozone standard for the Illinois portions of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI and St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL ozone nonattainment areas.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 11, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 10, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that, if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 11, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 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, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

The rule at OAC 3745-21-07 was adopted by the state of Ohio to control airborne emissions of organic materials from existing (as of the effective date of the adopted rule) sources not covered by other VOC emission control rules in OAC 3745-21. Most recently, EPA approved revisions to OAC 3745-21-07 into the Ohio SIP on August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51901).

On April 29, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted an amended OAC 3745-21-07, requesting that EPA approve the rule amendments as a revision to the Ohio SIP. The following summarizes the rule revisions and discusses whether these rule revisions are approvable as SIP revisions.

Where we note “this rule” or “the rule,” unless otherwise noted, we mean OAC 3745-21-07.

The title of the rule has been revised to “Control of emissions of organic materials from stationary sources (i.e., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745—21-09, 3745-21-12 to 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 to 3745-21-29 of the Administrative Code.” This title change accounts for the addition of VOC emission control rules that now cover some of the sources formerly covered by OAC 3745-21-07.

(A) Applicability:

(A)(1)—“RESERVED” modified to “Reserved.”

(A)(2)—“RESERVED” modified to “Reserved.”

(A)(3) — This paragraphs states that OAC 3745-21-07 applies to any source or operation for which installation commenced prior to February 18, 2008, and that is specified in paragraphs (K) through (N) of this rule. This rule does not apply to VOC emissions from sources or operations subject to rules 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12 to 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 to 3745-21-29. Any owner or operator of a source or operation identified in paragraphs (K) to (N) of this rule must have complied with the facility-specific and general emission control requirements of this rule by February 18, 2008. This paragraph was revised to reflect that new VOC emission control rules now cover some of the sources formerly covered by OAC 3745-21-07.

The other rule revision in this paragraph replaces what was previously “the effective date of this rule” by a specific date, February 18, 2008. February 18, 2008, was the effective date of the previous version of this rule; therefore, specifying this date retains and clarifies the date used to define the group of sources or operations subject to the requirements of this rule and the date by which subject emission control requirements must be implemented.

(A)(4)—This paragraph voids emission control requirements or operational restrictions contained in a permit-to-install, permit-by rule, permit-to-operate, or Title V permit if the requirements refer to photochemically reactive materials or the need to determine or document materials as being photochemically reactive materials or any recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to photochemically reactive materials. The revisions to this rule paragraph include the replacement of “the effective date of this rule” with the date February 18, 2008, grammatical corrections, and the addition of rule paragraph (N)(3) the list of emission limitations and control requirements in paragraph (A)(4). The list should include all paragraphs that contain an emission limitation or control requirement, but paragraph (N)(3) was inadvertently left out when Ohio last revised the rule.

(A)(5)—This paragraph states that this rule shall not apply to any source, including any new source, as defined in rule OAC 3745-15-01, for which installation commenced after “February 18, 2008,” revised from “the effective date of this rule.”

(A)(6)—This paragraph lists the emission test methods or emission data sources that may be used to demonstrate compliance for sources subject to mass emission rates under the rule. This rule paragraph has been revised to clarify that the owner or operator of a subject source or operation may demonstrate compliance using one of the three compliance methods listed.

(B)-(J)—“RESERVED” modified to “Reserved” for all of these rule paragraphs.

(K) Facility-specific control requirements for storage tanks (stationary tank, reservoir, or other container):

(K)(1)—This paragraph lists source facility owners or operators, source facility IDs, and source emission unit IDs for emission units subject to the emission control requirements in paragraph (K)(2), which requires that the storage tanks containing any liquid organic material that has a vapor pressure of 1.5 pounds per square inch or greater, under actual storage conditions, be equipped with one of the following: (a) A floating pontoon or double-deck type cover that includes closure seals (not permitted if the liquid in the tank has a vapor pressure of 12.5 pounds per square inch absolute or greater under actual storage conditions); or (b) a vapor recovery system or control system that reduces the emissions of organic compounds by at least 90 percent by weight.

The owner or operator names in the table of facilities and emissions units subject to the requirements of paragraph (K)(2) have been revised as noted here: “The Glidden Company” has been revised to “Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.;” a subject emissions unit associated with Azko Nobel Coatings, “T066,” has been removed due to permanent shutdown; and “Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC” has been revised to “Marathon Petroleum Company LP—Brecksville Terminal.”

(K)(3)—This paragraph lists source facility owners or operators, source facility IDs, and source emission unit IDs for emission units consisting of storage tanks with capacities equal to or less than 65,000 gallons, subject to the control requirements in paragraph (K)(4), which requires subject sources to not place, store, or hold in any storage tank identified in (K)(3) any liquid organic material that has a vapor pressure of 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute or greater, under actual storage conditions, unless the storage tank is equipped with a permanent submerged fill pipe, or is loaded through the use of a portable loading tube, which can be inserted below the liquid level during loading operations, or is fitted with a vapor recovery system as described in paragraph (K)(2)(b) of this rule.

Rule paragraph (K)(3) has been amended to remove the following sources previously subject to the requirements of (K)(4) due to permanent shutdown: Newark Air Force Base/AGMC (source facility 0145020224, source units T012 and T013); the Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe Facility (source facility 0243150025, source units T224 and T225); Veolia Environmental Services, LLC (source facility 0857751346, source units P006, T001, T005, T007, T017, T026, T040, T042, T044, T049, T051, T065, and T068); Clorox Company (source facility 1318000864, source unit T012); and Strongsville Expressmart (source facility 1318554294, source unit T008). For “Hukill Chemical Corporation” (source facility 1318030172), emissions unit T062 has been removed due to permanent shutdown. The following subject owner/operator names have been revised: “Tremco, Inc.” has been revised to “Tremco, Inc.—Mameco Division”; “Marathon Ashland Petroleum Corporation” has been revised to “Marathon Petroleum Company LP—Brecksville Terminal”; and “Glastic Corporation, Cleveland Facility” has been revised to “Rochling Glastic Composites”.

(L) Facility-specific control requirements for oil-water separators (effluent water separators):

(L)(1)—The owner/operator name of the only subject facility listed has been revised from “Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC” to “Marathon Ashland, LLC—CLOW”.

(M) Facility-specific and general control requirements for emissions from operations using liquid organic materials:

Table “(M)(1) Emissions Units” under paragraph (M)(1) lists owners/operators, source facility IDs, and emission units subject to the emission control requirements of paragraph (M)(2). Table (M)(1) has been revised as follows:

a. The following owners/operators and their associated source facilities and emission units have been removed from the list of applicable sources due to permanent shutdown: TS Trim Industries, Incorporated; Plastech Engineered Products, Incorporated (two facilities); Clean Harbors PPM, LLC; Structural North America; PFF/MFD/STD of Avery Dennison; GE Quartz, Incorporated, Willoughby Plant; Cantar/Polyair Corporation; Roemer Industries, Incorporated; Peerless—Winsmith, Incorporated; Eaton INOAC, Company; Manufacturers Enameling Corporation; Mill's Pride, Incorporated; Delphi Chassis Systems, Needmore Operations; Delphi Classic Systems, Home Avenue; Pitney Bowes; Veolia Environmental Services, LLC; The Chemical Solvents, Incorporated; Queen City Barrel Company; Owens Corning Trumbull; Alex Fries and Bros., Incorporated; and Blackhawk Automotive Plastics, Incorporated.

b. The following owner/operator names were revised with no other revisions to the applicable source facility IDs or source units: “Akzo Nobel” has been revised to “Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.;” “Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc., Middlefield #1” has been revised to “Masco Cabinetry Middlefield LLC (KraftMaid Plant #1);” “Chem Development” has been revised to “The Kennedy Group;” “LESCO, Inc.” has been revised to “Turf Care Supply Corp.—Martins Ferry Plant;” “Merillat Industries, Inc.” has been revised to “Masco Cabinetry, Merillat, Jackson;” “CDR Pigments and Dispersions” has been revised to “Flint Group Pigments; and “Emerald Polymer Additives” has been revised to “Emerald Performance Materials LLC.”

c. The following subject sources have been removed because they were erroneously included in table (M)(1) when the rule was last revised: 1 Waste Technologies Industries, Incorporated (facility ID 0215020233); 2 Troy Laminating and Coating, Incorporated (facility ID 0855140077); and, emissions units P008 and P009 at Thermoseal, Incorporated (facility ID 0575010161) 3 (in addition, emissions units P001-P005 and P011-P012 have been removed due to permanent shutdown);

d. The entries for the following subject sources have been revised as described:

1. “Safety Kleen Corp.—Hebron Recycle Center” has been revised to “Clean Harbors Recycling Services of Ohio L.L.C.,” emission unit P002 has been removed due to permanent shutdown, and the facility ID (0145020235) remains unchanged;

2. Iten Industries, Incorporated, Plant 1 (facility ID 0204010112) has been removed because the only subject emissions unit (P003) does not meet the applicability requirements set forth in paragraph (M)(3);

3. Pinney Deck and Transport Company (facility ID 0204010172) has been removed because the source was erroneously included in table (M)(1) since the only subject emissions unit (P001), an air stripper for treating contaminated ground water, is the actual process and is not considered emissions control and should not have been listed in the rule;

4. “Ohio Sealants” has been revised to “Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.,” emission unit P003 has been removed due to permanent shut down, and the facility ID (0243081155) remains unchanged;

5. “Noveen, Inc.” has been revised to “Lubrizol Advanced Materials,” emission units P020 and P026 have been removed due to shut down, and the facility ID (0247030004) remains unchanged;

6. Degussa Initiators, LLC has been removed because the subject units do not use photochemically reactive materials;

7. “The Glidden Company” has been revised to “Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.,” emission units P007 and P008 have been removed due to permanent shutdown, and the facility ID (0322000043) remains unchanged;

8. Guardian Manufacturing (facility ID 0339030016): Emission unit IDs P001, P002, and P004 have been renamed as P801, P802, and P804;

9. Union Tank Car Company (facility ID 0351010025) has been removed because its subject emissions unit, P002, does not employ a liquid organic material, which is a criterion for rule applicability;

10. BASF Corporation (facility ID 0819070134): Emission unit P011 has been removed because it is now part of P028 (which is listed);

11. Greenville Technologies, Inc. (facility ID 0819070190): Emission units K001, K002, K003, and K005 have been removed due to permanent shutdown;

12. Dupont Electronic Polymers, LP (facility ID 0857040727): For emission units P025 and P027, the applicability of paragraph (M)(2) has been restricted to when these units are in methylene chloride service (which is acceptable because emissions under non-methylene chloride operations are less than eight pounds per hour, which is lower than the applicability cut point in the original rule);

13. “Eurand” has been revised to “Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc.,” emission unit P013 has been removed due to permanent shutdown, and the facility ID (0857171794) remains unchanged;

14. Neaton Auto Products Manufacturing, Inc. (facility ID 08680300155): Emission unit R003 has been added because it was installed in 2007 and inadvertently omitted from the previous rule revision;

15. Rohm and Haas Chemicals, LLC (facility ID 0868090072): Emission unit P508 has been removed due to permanent shutdown.

16. Day-Glo Color Corp. (facility ID 1318006552): Emission units P001, P002, P008, P009, P024, P026, P027, and P030 have been added; 4

17. “Polymers Additives” with facility ID 1318030264 and emission units P027 and P034 has been added; 5

18. “Ineos ABS Corporation” has been revised to “Ineos ABS (USA) Corporation,” emission unit P021 has been removed because it was mistakenly included in the prior revision to this rule,6 emission units P010 and P036 have been added because these continuous polymer drying operation emissions units were inadvertently left out of the prior revision to this rule, and the facility ID (1431010054) remains unchanged;

19. H.B. Fuller Company (facility ID 1431052206): Emission units P003-P006 have been removed due to permanent shutdown;

20. “Ruetgers Organics Corporation” has been revised to “Nease Corporation,” emission unit P025 has been removed due to permanent shutdown; and facility ID (1431111828) remains unchanged;

21. PMC Specialties, Inc. (facility ID 141390137): Emission unit P022 has been removed due to permanent shutdown;

22. St. Bernard Soap Company has been removed because the subject emission units at this source never employed any photochemically reactive materials and thus should never have been included in the rule; and,

23. “PPB Industries, Barberton Plant” has been split into two separate facilities, “PPG Industries, South Plant” (with facility ID 1677020162 and unit P099) and “PPG Industries, Teslin Plant” (with facility ID 1677020164 and units P110, P114, and P115 7 ), and emission unit P098 has been removed because it is exempt from the rule.8

(M)(2)—This paragraph requires each article, machine, equipment or other contrivance identified in paragraph (M)(1) or meeting paragraph (M)(3)(a) of the subject rule (3745-21-07) to be equipped with a control system that reduces the organic compound emissions from the source by an overall control efficiency of at least 85 percent, by weight. If the emission reductions are achieved by incineration, the incineration must oxidate the carbon in the captured organic material to carbon dioxide by 90 percent or more. Paragraph (M)(2) has been edited to revise the phrase “meeting the specifications of paragraph (M)(3)(a)” to “meeting paragraph (M)(3)(a).”

(M)(3)—This paragraph covers other operations using liquid organic materials.

(M)(3)(a)—This paragraph lists nine conditions in (M)(3)(a)(i) to (M)(3)(a)(ix). Any article, machine, equipment or contrivance meeting all of these conditions must comply with the emission control requirements in (M)(2).

(M)(3)(a)(ii)—This paragraph has been revised from “Commenced installation prior to the effective date of the rule” to “Commenced installation prior to February 18, 2008.”

(M)(3)(a)(v)—This paragraph states that emissions are not subject to (M)(2) if they are subject to control requirements specified in other listed rules. The list of rules has been simplified and expanded by revising from “3745-21-09, 3745-12, 3745-13, 3745-14, 3745-15, 3745-16, or 3745-21-18” to “3745-21-09, 3745-12 to 3745-16, or 3745-21-18 to 3745-21-29.” This is acceptable because the emissions subject to the additional rules listed are being controlled under those rules.

(M)(3)(a)(ix)—This paragraph, which excludes fuel burning equipment as defined in rule 3745-17-01, has been revised to remove the identification of the specific paragraph under 3745-17-01 that contains the definition of fuel burning equipment.

(M)(3)(b)—This paragraph requires the owner/operator of a source meeting the conditions of this paragraph to notify OEPA of the need to include the subject owner/operator, facility ID, and source ID in the list of applicable sources under paragraph (M)(1). Paragraph (M)(3)(b) has been revised to include the following revisions: (1) “meeting the specifications of paragraph (M)(3)(a) of this rule” has been revised to “meeting paragraph (M)(3)(a) of this rule”; (2) “Ohio environmental protection agency” has been revised to “Ohio EPA”; and (3) the time limit for notifying OEPA has been revised from “within ninety days after the effective date of this rule” to “by May 18, 2008.” This corresponds with the revision in language elsewhere in the rule from “the effective date of this rule” to “February 18, 2008.”

(M)(3)(c)—This paragraph states that any article, equipment, or other contrivance that meets any of the conditions of this paragraph shall not be subject to the conditions and requirements of paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b). Paragraph (M)(3)(c) has been revised to convert “subject to the requirements of paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b)” to “subject to paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b).”

(M)(3)(c)(i)—This paragraph provides a source installation time cutoff, which has been revised from “commenced installation after the effective date of this rule” to “commenced installation after February 18, 2008.”

(M)(3)(c)(vi)—This paragraph exempts a heatset web offset printing line that is subject to and complying with a best available technology requirement pursuant to rule 3745-31-05, and that specifies the dryer(s) is to be equipped with a control device having either a control efficiency for organic compound or volatile organic compound emissions that is equal to or greater than 90 percent, by weight, or an outlet concentration of less than 20 parts per million, by volume, dry basis. This condition has been revised to replace “dryer(s)” with “dryer.”

(M)(3)(d)—This paragraph exempts specified articles, machines, equipment or other contrivances from the requirements of paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b). The beginning of this paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “subject to the requirements of paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b)” to the phrase “subject to paragraphs (M)(3)(a) and (M)(3)(b).”

(M)(3)(d)(i)—This paragraph exempts emission units identified in the remaining paragraphs in (M)(3)(d) that obtain an alternative emission limit or emission control requirement pursuant to paragraph (M)(5)(e). Paragraph (M)(3)(d)(x) has been deleted to correct an apparent typographical error.

(M)(3)(d)(iii)—The owner/operator listed in this paragraph has been revised from “The Nylonge Corporation” to “3M Elyria” and to remove emissions unit P005 due to permanent shutdown.

(M)(3)(d)(v)—This paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “to the levels specified” to the phrase “as specified.”

(M)(3)(d)(vi)—The owner/operator listed in this paragraph has been revised from “Honda Marysville Auto Plant” to “Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Marysville Auto Plant” and the subject facility ID has been revised from “0180000130” to “0180010193.”

(M)(3)(d)(vii) and (M)(3)(d)(viii)—These paragraphs have been removed due to the permanent shutdown of “Honda Anna Engine Plant” and “Florida Production Engineering.”

(M)(3)(d)(ix)—The owner/operator listed in this paragraph has been revised from “PPG Industries, Barberton Plant” to “PPG Industries, North Plant” and the subject facility ID has been revised from “1677020009” to “1677020163”.

(M)(3)(e)—This paragraph controls VOC emissions from the application of adhesives or other coatings at flock lines at the Cooper Standard Automotive, LLC facility in Bowling Green. This rule paragraph contains the following rule revisions: (1) Flock line 1 has been removed due to permanent shutdown and (2) the emissions units for flock lines 2, 3, and 4 have been renumbered to “P078, P079, and P080 in accordance with permit-to-install P0111501.”

(M)(3)(f)—This paragraph, which controlled the VOC emissions from a windshield glass system coating operation at the “GMC Truck and Bus Group Moraine” facility, has been deleted due to permanent shutdown of the facility.

(M)(3)(g)—This paragraph, except as provided in paragraphs (M)(3)(h) and (M)(5), applies to all existing sources located in a “Priority I” county, as identified in rule 3745-21-06 of the Ohio Administrative Code and to new sources, as defined in rule 3745-15-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code, regardless of location, for which installation commenced prior to the effective date this rule. This rule paragraph has been revised to replace “the effective date of this rule” with “February 18, 2008.”

(M)(3)(h)—This paragraph applied to emissions unit P027 at Venture Holdings Corporation—Conneaut Facility (currently known as Continental Structural Plastics, facility ID 0204020245). This paragraph was removed because the emissions unit is exempt from this rule per OAC rule 3745-21-25(A)(3), which states that “upon achieving compliance with this rule, the reinforced plastic composites production operations at the facility are not required to meet the requirements of rule 3745-21-07 of the Administrative Code.”

(M)(4)—This paragraph, except as provided in paragraph (M)(5) of this rule, applies to all existing sources in a “Priority I” county, as identified in rule 3745-21-06 of the Ohio Administrative Code, and to all new sources, as defined in rule 3745-15-01, regardless as location, for which installation commenced prior to the effective date of this rule. This rule paragraph has been revised to replace “the effective date of this rule” with “February 18, 2008.”

(M)(5) Exemptions.

(M)(5)(a)—This paragraph states that paragraph (M)(2) shall not apply to the use of any cleanup material in any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance described in paragraph (M)(2). This rule paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraph (M)(2)” to the phrase “Paragraph (M)(2).”

(M)(5)(b)—This paragraph states that paragraphs (M)(2), (M)(3)(a), and (M)(4) shall not apply for material used in sources described in paragraphs (M)(2), (M)(3)(a), and (M)(4) if the emission is not a VOC. This paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraph” to “Paragraph.”

(M)(5)(c)—The beginning of this paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraph” to “Paragraph.”

(M)(5)(d)—The beginning of this paragraph been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraph” to “Paragraphs.” This paragraph contains two exemptions [(M)(5)(d)(i) and (ii)] based on the use of low VOC content material. Originally these exemptions only applied to paragraph (M)(4). Paragraph (M)(5)(d) now also applies these exemptions to paragraphs (M)(1), (M)(2), and (M)(3)(a). These exemptions were provided for in a previous SIP-approved version of the rule but were erroneously omitted in the last rule revision. In addition, the beginning of both paragraphs (M)(5)(d)(i) and (M)(5)(d)(ii) have been revised by converting the phrase “The volatile content of the material described in paragraph (M)(4)” to the phrase “The volatile content of the material used in any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in paragraph (M)(1), (M)(2), (M)(3)(a) or (M)(4).”

Note that recordkeeping provisions for these exemptions were also added in new paragraph (M)(5)(j) to allow subject emissions units to switch between exempt and non-exempt liquid organic materials with respect to paragraph (M)(5)(d).

(M)(5)(e)—The beginning of this paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraphs” to the phrase “Paragraphs.” This rule paragraph exempts sources from the emission controls in rule paragraphs (M)(2), (M)(3)(d), (M)(3)(e), (M)(3)(f), (M)(3)(g), (M)(3)(h), and (M)(4) if the conditions contained in (M)(5)(e)(i), (ii), and (iii) are met.

(M)(5)(e)(i)—This condition deals with a situation where best available control technology is less stringent than or inconsistent with the emission control requirements in rule paragraph (M). A number of revisions have been made in this condition, and the revised condition now reads as:

This revision allows sources constructed before 1976 that do not trigger the applicability of OAC rule 375-31-05, to voluntarily accept best available technology requirements equivalent to those contained 375-31-05 and thus qualify for the same exemption that subject sources can obtain.

(M)(5)(e)(ii)—This condition applies when EPA has notified OEPA in writing, prior to the issuance of a final permit-to-install, that EPA has no objection to the issuance of the permit. In this paragraph “Ohio environmental protection agency” has been revised to “Ohio EPA;” and,

(M)(5)(e)(iii)—This condition applies where a final permit-to-install has been issued by OEPA pursuant to Chapter 3745-31 of the Administrative Code. In this paragraph, “Ohio environmental protection agency” has been revised to “Ohio EPA.”

(M)(5)(f)—This paragraph provides an exemption from paragraph (M) requirements for the use of liquid organic material whose emissions are regulated by specified emission control rules. This paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraph (M)” to the phrase “Paragraph (M).” The specified emission control rule list has been revised to include rules “3745-21-09, 3745-21-12 to 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 to 3745-21-29 of the Administrative Code.” This revision accounts for the addition of VOC emission control rules that now cover some of the sources formerly covered by OAC 3745-21-07.

(M)(5)(g)—This paragraph exempts sources located in Darke, Fairfield, Madison, Perry, Pickaway, Preble, or Union Counties and located within facilities having the potential to emit not more than 100 tons of organic material per year from the requirements of paragraphs (M)(3)(a), (M)(3)(b), (M)(3)(g), and (M)(4). The beginning of this paragraph has been modified by the conversion of the phrase “The provisions of paragraphs” to “Paragraphs.”

(M)(5)(h)—The beginning of this paragraph has been revised from “The provisions of paragraph” to “Paragraph.”

(M)(5)(i)—This paragraph been added: “Paragraph (M)(2) of this rule shall not apply to the use of phenolic urethane cold box resin binder system in foundry core-making and mold-making operations, provided the catalyst gas emissions are vented to a control device that is designed and operated to remove at least ninety-eight per cent by weight, of the catalyst gas emissions or maintain a maximum catalyst gas outlet concentration of one ppmv on a dry basis, whichever is less stringent. (In a phenolic urethane cold box resin binder system, sand is mixed with a two-part liquid urethane resin binder, and a catalyst gas is blown into the resin-coated sand to cause hardening.)” This exemption was contained in a previous SIP-approved version of this rule, but was erroneously omitted during the last revision.

(M)(5)(j)—This paragraph was added to require the owner or operator of an article, machine, equipment or other contrivance that is exempt per paragraph (M)(5)(d) of this rule to maintain the following records for all materials used. This addition ensures the enforceability of the rule provisions.

(M)(5)(j)(i)—The name and identification number of each liquid organic material used.

(M)(5)(j)(ii)—The composition of each material including the volatile content by volume percent of water. If exempt because of paragraph (M)(5)(d)(i) of this rule then the liquid organic material content, except water, relative to the volatile content (per cent by volume) or, if exempt because of paragraph (M)(5)(d)(ii) of this rule, the volatile content relative to the total material (per cent by volume).

(M)(5)(j)(iii)—All time periods (beginning and ending dates and time) for each material that is exempt per paragraph (M)(5)(d) of this rule.

(N) Facility-specific control requirements for waste gas flare systems:

(N)(1)—This paragraph specifies the owners/operators, facility IDs, and emission units subject to the control requirements of paragraph (N)(2). “CECOS International” (facility ID 1413000186) was removed from paragraph (N)(1) due to permanent shutdown of the facility.

(N)(3)—The owner/operator listed in this paragraph has been revised from “Aircraft Braking Systems, Corp.” to “Meggitt Aircraft Braking Systems, Corp.”.

EPA is approving, as part of Ohio's SIP, OAC rule 3745-21-07, as revised, now entitled “Control of emissions of organic materials from stationary sources (i.e., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12 to 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 to 3745-21-29 of the Administrative Code.”

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 11, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 10, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that, if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 11, 2017.

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 the Ohio Regulations described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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.9 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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).

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 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:

I. Does this action apply to me?

You may be affected by this direct final rule if you manufacture (including import), sell, supply, or offer for sale hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard, and/or products containing these composite wood materials in the United States. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing (NAICS code 3212).

• Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing (NAICS code 321991).

• Prefabricated wood building manufacturing (NAICS code 321992).

• Furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS code 337).

• Furniture merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42321).

• Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42331).

• Other construction material merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423390), e.g., merchant wholesale distributors of manufactured homes (i.e., mobile homes) and/or prefabricated buildings.

• Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421).

• Building material and supplies dealers (NAICS code 4441).

• Manufactured (mobile) home dealers (NAICS code 45393).

• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).

• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).

• Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers (NAICS code 441210).

• Recreational vehicle merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423110).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Following promulgation of EPA's final rule addressing formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products (81 FR 89674, December 12, 2016) (FRL-9949-90), industry stakeholders raised concerns to the Agency that the final rule's prohibition on labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before the December 12, 2017 compliance date would risk a substantial supply chain disruption for these products. These stakeholders requested that EPA allow labeling of compliant composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before December 12, 2017. EPA shares the concerns of industry stakeholders regarding the prohibition on labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before December 12, 2017. EPA believes that the risk of unintentional supply chain disruption is substantial, though through prompt regulatory action, avoidable. As such, EPA will eliminate the prohibition at § 770.45(f) of the December 12, 2016 final rule (see 81 FR 89741) on labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before December 12, 2017.

The agency believes that removal of the labeling prohibition will have no impact on the ability of stakeholders to comply with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission standards insofar as stakeholders are already working with their California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved Third Party Certifier (TPC) to ensure compliance with CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and as the stakeholders suggest, they are currently labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as CARB-compliant, and thus are also meeting the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission standards.

In addition, EPA generally expects that the transition will be smooth for stakeholders already receiving certifications of product compliance by a CARB-approved TPC to also begin receiving product compliance certifications by EPA TSCA Title VI TPCs under § 770.15 of the December 12, 2016 final rule (see 81 FR 89735) because § 770.7(d) of the December 12, 2016 final rule provided reciprocity provisions under which a CARB-approved TPC may be recognized by the Agency as an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC (see 81 FR 89733). Producers of composite wood products and TPCs should note that TPCs, including CARB-approved TPCs working under the TSCA Title VI reciprocity provisions, must be recognized by EPA prior to certifying any composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant. TPCs can begin to apply for EPA recognition after the May 22, 2017 rule effective date by following the procedures outlined in § 770.7(c)(2) and § 770.8.

Although EPA is eliminating § 770.45(f) of the December 12, 2016 final rule that prohibits labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before December 12, 2017, the other labeling requirements at § 770.45 will still apply. Notably, anyone that would label composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant will still be required to include the CARB or EPA provided identification number of the EPA TSCA Title VI TPC and a statement that products are certified by that TPC as TSCA Title VI compliant. For this reason, this direct final rule is not expected to result in any reduction of environmental or public health protection. However, this action is expected to provide greater certainty to entities throughout the supply chain that composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood product are compliant with TSCA Title VI and enhance consumer confidence earlier than currently provided for in the December 12, 2016 final rule. EPA acknowledges that the delay of the effective date of the December 12, 2016 final rule (see 82 FR 8499 and 82 FR 14324) may have given rise to additional stakeholder concerns about that rule's respective implementation compliance dates. As a result, EPA has determined that those compliance dates should be extended and has initiated a separate action to extend them.

EPA is therefore publishing this direct final rule, and a notice of proposed rulemaking elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register to address the elimination of the early labeling provision, as described in Units II.A.1 and II.A.2.

1. Direct Final Rule. EPA agrees with the stakeholders' requests and will eliminate the prohibition at § 770.45(f) of the December 12, 2016 final rule (see 81 FR 89741) on labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant before December 12, 2017.

2. Proposed rule. EPA believes that the amendment is non-controversial and does not expect to receive any adverse comments. However, in addition to this direct final rule, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is promulgating the amendment as a notice of proposed rulemaking (See FRL-9963-05). If EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency will not take further action on the proposed rule and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final action will not take effect. EPA would then address all adverse public comments in a response to comments document in a subsequent final rule, based on the proposed rule.

These regulations are established under authority of Section 601 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.

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 under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). In addition, since this action does not contain a new requirement or impose any new burden or costs, the action qualifies as a burden reduction action under Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Although the change reduces burden, EPA did not attempt to determine the extent of that burden reduction. As such, this action can only be used for the 2 for 1 off-set described in Executive Order 13771.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping obligations. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2070-0185 (EPA ICR No. 2446.02).

The Agency certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This direct final rule will allow regulated entities to voluntarily label compliant products prior December 12, 2017. The direct final rule will ease the transition of panel producers, fabricators, importers, distributors, and retailers from CARB labeling to TSCA labeling, since under the December 12, 2016 final rule, it would be difficult for some of them to time their production and inventory so that products that are labeled as TSCA compliant are available starting on but not before the compliance date. Since early labeling is voluntary, any firms that do not find this activity to be beneficial can wait until December 12, 2017 to begin offering labeled products for sale. EPA therefore concludes that this action will have a nominally positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.

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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. As addressed in Unit II.A., this action would not materially alter the requirements for labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant. Rather, the final rule will allow TSCA Title VI compliant products to be labeled as such earlier sooner than currently permitted.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

EPA has determined that the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As addressed in Unit II.A., this action would not materially alter the requirements for labeling composite wood products and finished goods containing composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant. Rather, the final rule will allow TSCA Title VI compliant products to be labeled as such earlier sooner than currently permitted.

This action is subject to the CRA and 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).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

As specified at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i), the blueline tilefish commercial ACL is 87,521 lb (39,699 kg), round weight.

The blueline tilefish commercial AM requires NMFS to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish when the commercial ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i). NMFS has projected that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic blueline tilefish will be reached by July 18, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 18, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.

The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having blueline tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such blueline tilefish prior to July 18, 2017. During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited. The harvest or possession of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2) and 622.187(c)(1), respectively, while the recreational sector for blueline tilefish is open. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel with a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, and apply to the harvest of blueline tilefish in both state and Federal waters.

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of blueline tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect blueline tilefish, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the FMP prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2017 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Aleut Corporation directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 5,700 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017), and as adjusted by reallocations (82 FR 12750, March 7, 2017).

As of June 16, 2017, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 5,700 mt of the Aleut Corporation pollock DFA in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(4), NMFS reallocates 5,700 mt of A season pollock DFA from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2017 Bering Sea subarea DFAs. The 5,700 mt of the Aleut Corporation pollock DFA is added to the 2017 Bering Sea non-CDQ DFAs. As a result, the 2017 harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017), and as adjusted by reallocations (82 FR 12750, March 7, 2017) are revised as follows: 0 mt to the annual Aleut Corporation pollock DFA. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Aleut Corporation pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

Furthermore, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Table 5 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017, and 82 FR 12750, March 7, 2017), is revised to make 2017 pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in adjustments to the 2017 pollock allocations established at § 679.20(a)(5).