The NRC is using the direct final rule procedure because it considers this action noncontroversial and routine. This direct final rule is updating the NRC's size standard to reflect that of the SBA. The amendments in this rule will become effective on August 22, 2012, unless significant adverse comments are received by August 2, 2012. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If the rule is withdrawn, timely notice will be published in theFederal Register.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.

The NRC established its size standards on December 9, 1985 (50 FR 50241). On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56671), the NRC conformed its format for size standards to mirror the definitions of small entities in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended. On April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18344), the NRC again adjusted its receipts-based, small business size standard in a final rule published in theFederal Register. In a direct final rule published in theFederal Registeron August 10, 2007 (72 FR 44951), the NRC adjusted its receipts-based small business size standard in order to conform to the SBA size standard for nonmanufacturing industries.

The NRC is amending Title 10 of theCode of Federal Regulations(10 CFR) part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR part 171, “Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses and Fuel Cycle License and Materials Licenses,Including Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC,” to reflect its receipts-based, small business size standard increasing from $6.5 million to $7.0 million. This adjustment is to conform to the SBA receipts-based, small business size standard, the most commonly used SBA standard for the non-manufacturing industries. The SBA adjusted this standard for inflation on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3041), on December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72577), and again on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41237). The NRC is not revising any of its other size standards at this time. The NRC informed the Chief, Office of Size Standards, SBA, of these amendments.1 This rule change will result in reduced annual fees being imposed on licensees under the Fiscal Year 2012 fee rule for those licensees with receipts between $6.5 million and $7.0 million.

Section 2.810 establishes the size standards for determining whether a licensee qualifies as a small entity in the NRC's regulatory programs. The NRC is increasing its receipts-based, small business size standard from $6.5 million to $7.0 million. Therefore, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) are amended by revising “$6.5” to read “$7.0.”

Section 171.16 establishes the annual fees that will be paid by the following: materials licensees, holders of certificates of compliance, holders of sealed source and device registrations, holders of quality assurance program approvals, and government agencies licensed by the NRC. The NRC is increasing its receipts-based, small business size standard from $6.5 million to $7.0 million. Therefore, the chart within the introductory text of paragraph (c) is amended by revising “$6.5” to read “7.0.”

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, unless using a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This direct final rule is updating the NRC's receipts-based, small business size standard to reflect that of the SBA. This action is administrative in nature and does not involve the establishment or application of a technical standard containing generally applicable requirements.

The NRC has determined that this direct final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this direct final rule. This direct final rule amends the criteria that the NRC uses to determine which of its licensees qualify as small entities for the purpose of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended. The amended size standard conforms to the SBA's revised standard and is expected to result in an increase in the number of NRC licensees that qualify as small entities for annual fee assessments and other purposes. These amendments are administrative in nature and will neither impose new safety requirements nor relax existing ones and therefore do not call for the sort of safety/cost analysis described in the NRC's regulatory analysis guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the US NRC,” September 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042820192).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this direct final rule amending 10 CFR parts 2 and 171 does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The direct final rule is administrative in that it amends the criteria that the NRC uses to determine which of its licensees qualify as small entities for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended. The amended size standard conforms to the SBA's revised standard and is expected to result in an increase in the number of NRC licensees that qualify as small entities.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this direct final rule and that a backfit analysis is not required, because these amendments do not include any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2 and 171.

On February 7, 2012, the FAA issued Amendment No. 1-67, entitled “Removal of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc Definitions” (77 FR 9163). The direct final rule removes the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. The definitions are outdated because they are no longer used for aircraft certification or operational authorization. Removing the definitions will aid in international harmonization efforts, future landing minima reductions, and airspace system capacity improvements due to the implementation of performance based operations. The FAA requested that comments on that rule be received on or before March 19, 2012.

By letter dated March 16, 2012, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requested that the FAA consider postponing the effective date of the rule until the rule is reviewed through an international process. ICAO stated that due to the short time frame, it was not in the position to understand the full implications of removing the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions. ICAO further stated that additional time was necessary to adequately assess the impact of the Direct Final Rule and prepare comments.

On April 13, 2012, the FAA reopened the comment period for the Direct Final Rule until May 14, 2012, and delayed the effective date from April 16, 2012 to June 12, 2012. A direct final rule takes effect on the specified date unless the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment within the comment period. If adverse comments are received, the FAA will advise the public by publishing a document in theFederal Registerbefore the effective date of the direct final rule. An adverse comment explains why a rule would be inappropriate or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change, or may challenge the rule's underlying premise or approach. The FAA received eight comments on this rule. The FAA does not consider these comments to be adverse and is therefore publishing this Confirmation of Effective Date and Response to Public Comments in response to those comments.

The FAA received eight comments on this rule. Six of those comments were received during the original comment period, and two comments were received after the comment period reopened. ICAO, Boeing, and five individuals commented on this rule.

On March 16, 2012, ICAO requested that the FAA delay the effective date of the rule so that it may conduct further review of this rulemaking. By letter dated May 14, 2012, ICAO submitted a follow up comment, stating that it has been clarified that “removal of the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions from 14 CFR part 1 will not impact relevant operational documents such as advisory circulars.” Additionally, ICAO further stated that “this initiative would have no impact on the recognition of any CAT III a, b, or c operational approval for international operators or United States-issued operational approvals which conform to Annex 6—Operation of Aircraft.On this basis, the International Civil Aviation Organization has no objection to the change * * *”

Two individual commenters expressed support for this rulemaking. Boeing and three individual commenters expressed concern about various aspects of this rulemaking. Boeing submitted a comment during the original comment period. It stated that “[w]ithout additional guidance, the removal of these categories' definitions will create confusion and inconsistencies in the establishment of operational authorizations, and leave subject to individual interpretation the low weather minima capabilities of the combined ground, space, and airborne systems.” Boeing also noted that this rulemaking will require corresponding changes to other FAA regulations, orders and advisory circulars and will have substantial international ramifications. Additionally, Boeing suggested that “the public be given the opportunity to review the proposed changes in their entirety and comment via the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) process.” Boeing did not submit an additional comment during the reopened comment period.

Several individual commenters expressed similar concerns. One commenter stated that “[a] unilateral change of these standards by the UnitedStates will negate the current global harmony of these landing definitions, and compel international flight crews to train and operate differently in the United States versus the rest of the world.” This commenter further stated that “* * * these changes should not be allowed to become effective until ICAO has changed the internationally recognized standard definitions, and all member states have concurred * * *” Two anonymous commenters submitted nearly identical comments and stated that “[t]he proposed definition relaxation will result in blending the Cat III operational and system performance distinctions, and appears to ignore the potential reduction in safety” These individuals also commented that “* * * fail-passive systems and flight crews trained to the fail-passive minimums and procedures will be permitted to fly to fail-operational minimums.”

In response to Boeing's comment, the FAA notes that the removal of the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions will not affect current FAA category III aircraft certifications or operator authorizations and will not require changes to other FAA regulations. Category III standards used in the United States will be completely unaffected by the removal of the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions. The Category III operational concepts represented by the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions are used to develop the certification and authorization criteria and these criteria are then applied directly to individual aircraft certifications and operator authorizations. Thus, the certification of Category III aircraft systems under Advisory Circular (AC) 120-28D no longer directly refers to the Category IIIa, b, and c definitions contained in 14 CFR 1.1, but uses the airworthiness criteria in the AC and the certification statements refer to those criteria as well. Likewise, Operations Specification (OpSpec) C060, the operational authorization for Category III operators, no longer specifically uses the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions, but rather ties authorized weather minima to the certification level of aircraft, as specified in the AC.

In response to the individual comments, the FAA notes that AC 120-28D uses the ICAO Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions in its development of Category III operational concepts. Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions will continue to be used unless changed in the normal ICAO process. In its second comment, ICAO stated that this rulemaking would have no impact on the recognition of any CAT III a, b, or c operational approval for international operators or United States-issued operational approvals which conform to Annex 6—Operation of Aircraftand therefore has no objection to the change. Thus, operational authorizations for all operators and aircraft certification through AC 120-28D and OpSpec C060 rely only upon the ICAO Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions and will be completely unaffected by removing the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc in the CFR. Additionally, the use of Fail Passive or Fail Operational Category III minima is not bound by the Category III definition. Category III minima are controlled completely by the operational authorization, OpSpec C060, under criteria contained in AC 120-28D. Since, as explained above, the AC criteria will be unaffected by removal of the sub-definitions, CAT III minima authorized through the OpSpec will be unchanged.

After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the direct final rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is necessary. Therefore, Amendment 1-67 remains in effect.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using the Internet—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Comments received may be viewed by going tohttp://www.regulations.govand following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTheading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visithttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Since 2008, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 67.401(j) has required individuals granted the Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate (Authorization) to have their letter of Authorization in their physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft while exercising pilot privileges. The FAA published a direct final rule on March 22, 2012 (77 FR 16664) to remove this provision for several reasons. Namely, affected individuals find the standard burdensome given that other longstanding FAA operational requirements already mandate that pilots carry their medical certificate when exercising pilot privileges. In addition, the FAA is not aware of any individuals affected by the standard who have had to produce their letter of Authorization for any civil aviation authorities during the nearly 4-year period the rule has been in effect. In this regard, the FAA identified this rulemaking action as burden-relieving under Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

Once this rule becomes effective, § 67.401(j) no longer will apply. This means that the “Note”under the regulatory reference to § 67.401(j) listed under the “Conditions of Issue” on an individual's existing FAA medical certificate no longer will be necessary. This does not mean that the FAA needs or intends to re-issue medical certificates. It will be acceptable for the FAA medical certificate to reference this “Note”until an individual's medical certificate is renewed. The FAA will begin using medical certificates with updated “Conditions of Issue” that do not include reference to the removed standard as soon as possible after July 20, 2012.

The FAA received nine supportive comments from individuals and one supportive comment from the Air Line Pilots Association International regarding this action. All of the commenters believe that this regulation is unnecessary, and removing it would relieve affected pilots of an undue burden.

The FAA received no adverse comments in response to the direct final rule “Removal of the Part 67 Requirement for Individuals Granted the Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate to Carry Their Letter of Authorization While Exercising Pilot Privileges”. The FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is necessary. Therefore, the rule is adopted as amendment 67-21 and becomes effective on July 20, 2012.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using the Internet —

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page athttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Comments received may be viewed by going tohttp://www.regulations.govand following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is adopting use of a monthlyFederal Registerdocument to codify approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs. CVM will no longer publish a separate rule for each action. This approach will allow a more efficient use of available resources.

In this document, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the original and supplemental approval actions during May 2012, as listed in table 1 of this document. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (freedom of information summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room athttp://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 522 and 556 are amended as follows:

The Department of State published a notice in theFederal Registeron December 16, 1992, providing that the defense export policy for Yemen included a “presumption of denial” for proposed exports of lethal defense articles or items supporting such articles. On August 8, 2011, the Department amended the ITAR to include Yemen in § 126.1, which describes prohibited exports, imports, and sales to or from certain countries. That policy allowed for the export of non-lethal defense articles and defense services and non-lethal, safety-of-use defense articles for lethal end-items. License applications for the export of lethal defense articles and defense services were denied.

This rule removes the ITAR § 126.1 limitations on defense trade with Yemen. Less restrictive defense trade will further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. The Republic of Yemen has taken important steps to stabilize the country, including holding successful presidential elections in February 2012. Furthermore, the Republic of Yemen is a critical partner in the United States' continuing efforts against terrorism. Defense assistance to the Yemeni government will be critical to increasing stability and security throughout the country and countering this threat.

Therefore, § 126.1(u) is removed, and the Department will review on a case-by-case basis all requests for licenses or other approvals for exports or temporary imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Yemen.

The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the view of the Department of State that the provisions of § 553(d) do not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication. The Department also finds that, given the national security issues surrounding U.S. policy towards Yemen, notice and public procedure on this rule would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest; for the same reason, the rule will be effective immediately.See5 U.S.C. 808(2).

Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

This amendment will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this amendment.

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

The Department of State has reviewed the amendment in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 126 is amended as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not using the NPRM process. The Coast Guard received notice from the sponsor, Optum Health Performance, on March 13, 2012 stating they will be holding a triathlon on the Upper Mississippi River on July 22, 2012. The triathlon is being advertised via press releases to various media outlets to target people on a local, state, and national level to ensure maximum outreach and preparation for the event. Completing the NPRM process is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would delay the necessary special local regulation, providing restricted areas and safety measures required to protect participants and event personnel from hazards associated with a swim event in the Mississippi River. Delaying this rule by completing the NPRM would also unnecessarily interfere with and delay the planned event and possible contractual obligations. For the same reasons, 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 theFederal Register. Delaying this rule by providing 30 days notice would be contrary to public interest because action is needed to protect participants and event personnel during the swim leg of the Optum Health Twin Cities Triathlon.

On July 22, 2012 Optum Health Performance will hold the Optum Health Performance Twin Cities Triathlon between mile 842.0 and 840.0 on the Upper Mississippi River. There are expected to be at least 700 athletes participating in the event. Anticipated traffic on the river, presents safety risks to the athletes swimming the swim section of the triathlon. Under 33 U.S.C. 1233 authority the Coast Guard is establishing this special local regulation to provide for the safety of participants, event personnel, spectators, and other users and vessels on the Upper Mississippi River during the swim section of the Optum Health Triathlon.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all waters of the Upper Mississippi River, from mile 842.0 to 840.0, extending the entire width of the river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons, except persons and vessels specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or designated representative. This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. on July 22, 2012. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River will inform the public of the enforcement period by local notice to mariners, and changes to the enforcement by 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 or executive orders.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits undersection 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This rule is not expected to have a significant regulatory impact as it will be in effect for a limited time period and notifications to the marine community will be made by local notice to mariners, and subsequent notifications through broadcast notice to mariners. Deviation from the rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Upper Mississippi River, mile 842.0 to 840.0 from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. on July 22, 2012. This temporary special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for a limited time period and notifications to the marine community will be made by local notice to mariners, and subsequent notifications through broadcast notice to mariners. Deviation from the rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation, please contact LTJG Colin Fogarty, Sector Upper Mississippi River Response Department at telephone 314-269-2546, emailColin.M.Fogarty@uscg.mil.

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 theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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

This rule 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 various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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 establishing a special local regulation, requiring a permit wherein an analysis of the environmental impact of the regulations was performed. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction and an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determinationare not required for this rule. This rule 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 100 as follows:

Table of Acronyms COTPCaptain Of The Port DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register LLNRLight List Number NEPANational Environmental Policy Act NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

On March 23, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations: Ocean State Tall Ships Festival 2012, Narragansett Bay, RI” in theFederal Register(77 FR 16974). We received no comments on the proposed 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 theFederal Register. The Ocean State Tall Ships Festival 2012 begins on July 6, 2012. Delaying the effective date of this rule beyond July 6, 2012, would be contrary to the public interest in seeing the festival conducted according to schedule, and would make it more difficult for the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with this event.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to define Special Local Regulations.

These temporary special local regulations are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators fromhazards associated with the Ocean State Tall Ships Festival 2012.

No comments were received, and no changes were made to the language contained in the NPRM.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. These regulations involve only the southern portion of Narragansett Bay and will close the East Passage to commercial traffic only for several hours during the actual Parade of Sail on July 9, 2012. The West Passage will remain open to vessel traffic at all times. The impact of these regulations will not be significant because the majority of these regulations will be in effect for only a portion of one day centered on the Parade of Sail, and most vessel traffic can pass safely around affected areas of the East Passage by transiting through the West Passage, Narragansett Bay.

Notice of these special local regulations will be provided prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition, the sponsoring organization, Ocean State Tall Ships, Inc., will publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, internet sites, television and radio broadcasts.

Mariners will be able to adjust their plans accordingly based on the extensive advance information.

Moreover, the Areas created by these special local regulations have been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on maritime interests yet provide the level of safety and protection deemed necessary.

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Narragansett Bay between July 6 and July 9, 2012, particularly during the Parade of Sail on July 9, 2012, when the navigation channel in the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, will be closed for a period of time to all traffic except vessels participating in the Parade of Sail.

These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The regulations affecting navigation in the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, will be in effect temporarily, and only for those periods of time necessary for the safety of the Ocean State Tall Ships Festival 2012 participants and spectators in boats viewing the Parade of Sail from waters adjacent to the parade route. The East Passage will remain open to all vessel traffic for the entire Festival from July 6-8, 2012, and will only be closed to vessel traffic for several hours during the Parade of Sail on July 9, 2012. While the East Passage is closed, the West Passage will remain open and capable of being used by all recreational and most commercial vessels.

Notice of these special local regulations will be provided prior to the event by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition, the sponsoring organization, Ocean State Tall Ships, Inc., will publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, internet sites, television and radio broadcasts.

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 will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 establishes temporary special local regulations to provide for the safety of life and property on the navigable waterways of Narragansett Bay and Newport Harbor, Rhode Island, during the Ocean State Tall Ships Festival on July 6-9 2012. This rule 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:

On November 9, 2011, we published a final rule entitled “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Recurring Events in Captain of Port New York Zone” in theFederal Register(76 FR 69613). In that rulemaking, the Coast Guard established a permanent safety zone for the annual Macy's 4th of July Fireworks, listed in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.160, entitled Macy's 4th of July Fireworks.

On March 23, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulation; Macy's Fourth of July Fireworks Display Spectator Viewing Areas; Hudson River; New York, NY” in theFederal Register(77 FR 16978). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the logistics of the event for this year were not finalized and provided to the Coast Guard with sufficient time to publish a NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date of the event. Immediate action is necessary to ensure public safety due to the inherent hazards associated with launching fireworks and the explosive nature of the fireworks display. Therefore any delay in promulgating this regulation would reduce public safety and is therefore contrary to the public interest.

On Friday, April 27, 2012 the sponsor notified the Coast Guard that it intendedto shift the fireworks display further south of the existing safety zone established in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.160.

The sponsor advised that it intends to use four barges spaced 1500 feet apart in order to enhance safety and improve the visual effect of the fireworks for the 2012 Macy's 4th of July Fireworks Display. The sponsor further advised that because the command center for the event will be located at Pier 64 in the vicinity of Chelsea Piers, it was necessary to shift the fireworks display south on the Hudson River to allow for constant monitoring and unobstructed view of the entire display site and fallout areas. In previous years the command center was located further north in the vicinity of Pier 88 at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. The sponsor requested that the Coast Guard increase the size of the safety zone for the 2012 fireworks display.

Based on the information received regarding the placement of the launch platforms further south on the Hudson River, the fall out area is outside of the existing safety zone established in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.160 and will not meet the needs of this year's fireworks display.

Therefore, to mitigate the potential danger to spectators, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone and temporary SLR. Any delay or cancellation of the event in order to allow for a notice and comment period is contrary to the public interest in having this event occur on July 4, 2012 as scheduled.

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 theFederal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during the event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Also, a delay or cancellation of the fireworks event in order to allow for publication in theFederal Registeris contrary to the public's interest in having this event occur as scheduled.

The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorizes the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones and special local regulations.

This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks display. Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP New York has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of increased numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris, especially burning debris falling on passing or anchored spectator vessels has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This regulation temporarily establishes limited access areas to restrict vessel movement around the location of the launch platforms to reduce the risk associated with the launch of fireworks.

The 2012 Macy's 4th of July Fireworks event is scheduled to occur on the waters of the Hudson River, New York, NY. This rule establishing a temporary safety zone and a temporary special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.

The fireworks display is scheduled to occur from 9:20 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. This rule will be enforced from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2012 in order to ensure that the area is clear of persons and vessels before the fireworks display begins, and to ensure that no explosive hazards remain after the fireworks display ends. If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, then this regulation will be enforced from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 5, 2012.

The COTP New York will establish five limited access areas within the boundary of the regulated area. Access to these areas will be restricted to vessels of a certain size. The five limited access areas are: (1) A “spectator area” designated ALPHA in which access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters in length (65.6 ft); (2) a “spectator area” designated BRAVO in which access is limited to vessels greater than 20 meters in length (65.6 ft); (3) a “buffer zone” around the fireworks launch barges, designated area CHARLIE, limited to all vessels tending the fireworks launch barges; (4) a “spectator area” designated DELTA in which access is limited to vessels greater than 20 meters in length (65.6 ft); and (5) a “spectator area” designated ECHO in which access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters in length (65.6 ft).

Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to the event through the 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 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is based on the limited time that vessels will be restricted from the zone. The temporary safety zone and special local regulation will only be in effect for approximately five hours during the evening. The Coast Guard expects minimum adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation as the event has been extensively advertised to the public. Also, mariners may request authorization from the COTP New York or the designated representative to transit the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Hudson River, in the vicinity of New York, NY during the effective period.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only five hours on a single-day during the late evening. Although the temporary safety zone and temporary special local regulation will apply to the entire width of the river, vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the area with the permission of the COTP New York or the designated representative. The event is well known and extensive advertisement has allowed for publicnotification. Also, before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.

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 theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 establishment of a temporary safety zone and a temporary special local regulation. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 theFederal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 9:45 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on July 12, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Erie near Rocky River, OH. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Cleveland Yachting Club Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 12, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH within a 560 foot radius of position41°29′24.09″ N and 81°50′18.42″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie on the evening of July 12, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be impracticable since immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters.

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 theFederal Register. Delaying the effective date would be impracticable since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area.

On July 7, 2012 the Wicomico Church will sponsor a fireworks display, if the scheduled event is cancelled on July 4, 2012 on the Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, VA. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, access to the Great Wicomico River within 420 feet of the fireworks launching platform at position 37°50′31″ N/076°19′42″ W (NAD 1983) will be temporarily restricted.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, Virginia. The fireworks will be launched from land adjacent to the Great Wicomico River and the safety zone is intended to protect mariners from any fall out that may enter the water. This safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within 420 feet of the fireworks launching platform located at position 37°50′31″ N/076°19′42″ W (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be established in the interest of public safety during the Wicomico Community Fireworks event and will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for individuals responsible for launching the fireworks and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) mariners may transit the waters in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the Port or designated representative; and (iv), the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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.

The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Great Wicomico River from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration. (ii) Before the enforcement period of July 7, 2012, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. (iii) This regulation will only be enforced if inclement weather caused the cancellation of the fireworks display currently scheduled for July 4, 2012.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 theFederal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on July 3, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Port Bay near Wolcott, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Port Bay, Wolcott, NY within an 840 foot radius of barge position 43°18′13.3″ N and 76°50′16.9″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Port Bay on the evening of July 3, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 120 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This rule 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 haveanalyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable as it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 theFederal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Erie near Buffalo, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Buffalo July 4th Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 11:15 p.m. on July 4, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Buffalo, NY within a 1680 foot radius of position 42°52′14.92″ N and 78°52′56.57″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Lake Erie on the evening of July 4, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only two hours and fifteen minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below. 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 theFederal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Ontario in Sackets Harbor, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Village of Sackets Harbor Fireworks. This safety zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY within a 420 foot radius of position 43°56′51.87″ N and 76°07′46.98″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners of operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario,Sackets Harbor, NY between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because of the minimal amount of time in which the safety zone will be enforced. This safety zone will only be enforced for 120 minutes in a low commercial vessel traffic area. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be issued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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.

If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, emailSectorBuffaloMarineSafety@uscg.mil.The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Ports and Waterways Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones (33 U.S.C sections 1221 et seq.).

Crescent City-Del Norte County Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the Crescent City Fourth of July Fireworks Event on July 4, 2012, in the navigable waters near the West Jetty of Crescent City Harbor off of Crescent City, CA. Upon the commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2012, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch site within a radius of 560 feet at position 41°44′41″ N, 124°11′59″ W (NAD 83). The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes and the safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch site within a radius of 560 feet during fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2012, the safety zone willencompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch site within a radius 560 feet at position 41°44′41″ N, 124°11′59″ W (NAD 83) for the Crescent City Fourth of July Fireworks Event. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks launch site during the fireworks display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule does not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and 35(b) 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on May 5, 2012, and the fireworks display would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

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

The City of Richmond will sponsor the Independence Day Fireworks Celebration for the City of Richmond on July 3, 2012, on Lucretia Edwards Park near Richmond, CA in position 37°54′34″ N, 122°21′17″ W (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18649. Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the launch site within a radius of 420 feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around the land based launch site on Lucretia Edwards Park near Richmond, CA. Upon the commencement of the 20 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 3, 2012, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius 420 feet from position 37°54′34″ N, 122°21′17″ W (NAD 83) for the Independence Day Fireworks Celebration for the City of Richmond. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule does not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and 35(b) 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment, pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard also is issuing this rule fewer than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on May 7, 2012, and the fireworks display would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Therefore, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective without prior notice and comment, and fewer than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register.

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

The City of Vallejo will sponsor the Independence Day Fireworks Celebration for the City of Vallejo on July 4, 2012, on Mare Island near Vallejo, CA in position 38°06′09″ N, 122°16′15″ W (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18655. Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the launch site within a radius of 420 feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around the land based launch site on Mare Island near Vallejo, CA. Upon the commencement of the 20 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2012, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius 420 feet from position 38°06′09″ N, 122°16′15″ W (NAD 83) for the Independence Day Fireworks Celebration for the City of Vallejo. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone will terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

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

The safety zone is not a significant regulatory action because it is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and 35(b) 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 underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

Table of Acronyms DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

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 theFederal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Erie near Bay Village, OH. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Bay Village Independence Day Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH within an 1120 foot radius of position 41°29′24.4″ N and 81°55′46.8″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scenerepresentative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie on the evening of July 4, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Niceville July 4th Fireworks Show listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Table No. 145; Sector Mobile, No. 4 on July 4, 2012 from 8 p.m. until 9 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Table No. 145; Sector Mobile, No. 4 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port Mobile or Patrol Commander determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

On May 23, 2012, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; A Salute to our Heroes, Hamlin Beach State Park, Hamlin, NY in theFederal Register(77 FR 30448). We received 0 letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may issue a rule less than 30 days before its effective date when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Accordingly, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this temporary final rule less than 30 days before its effective date because delaying the effective date of this temporary final rule would prevent its enforcement on the scheduled night of the event and thus, would preclude the Coast Guard from protecting spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Between 10:15 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on July 7, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on the waters of Hamlin Beach State Park near Hamlin, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

As mentioned above, no comments were received from the public in response to the NPRM that preceded this temporary rule. Furthermore, there were no changes made between the proposed rule and this temporary final rule. Thus, there are no comments and no changes to discuss.

Just as was described in the NPRM, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the boating public during the A Salute to Our Heroes Fireworks. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2012. The safety zone will encompass all waters off of Hamlin Beach State Park, Hamlin, NY within a 700 FT radius of position 43°21′51.9″ N, 77°56′59.6″ W (DATUM: NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners of operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie near Hamlin, NY between 9:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2012.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 105 minutes late in the day when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will beissued, which include a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The EPA is taking action on a revision to Louisiana's SIP submitted on June 13, 2008, that addressed progress toward reducing regional haze for the first implementation period ending in 2018. This revision was submitted to address the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's rules to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in mandatory Class I areas. As identified by Congress, there is one mandatory Class I area within the State of Louisiana, Breton National Wilderness Area.1 The initial submittal from Louisiana was supplemented by a May 30, 2012, letter communicating that the State finalized its Smoke Management Plan (SMP). On February 28, 2012, the EPA published a proposed partial limited approval and partial disapproval of Louisiana's SIP revision to address RH.See77 FR 11839.2

In that action, the EPA proposed a partial limited approval of Louisiana's June 13, 2008, SIP revision addressing RH under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because certain provisions of the revision strengthen the Louisiana (LA) SIP. The EPA also proposed a partial disapproval of the LA RH SIP submittal because the submittal includes several deficient provisions. The deficiencies identified in the proposal go beyond those identified in the limited disapproval proposed on December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219) which addressed deficiencies in several states' regional haze plans caused by the remand of the CAIR. The EPA proposed that certain elements of the State's Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)evaluations and determinations are not fully adequate to meet the federal requirements. Additionally, as a result of the deficiencies related to BART, the EPA proposed that the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) is not fully adequate to meet federal requirements. Finally, because visibility impacts from smoke are significant in Louisiana, we proposed that Louisiana should finalize its SMP. The EPA proposed a limited approval for portions of the revision because those portions represent an improvement over the current SIP, and make considerable progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA RH program requirements.

The EPA received comments on the Agency's February 28, 2012 proposed action. See section III of this rulemaking for a summary of comments received and the EPA's responses to these comments. Also, the EPA received a final SMP from Louisiana on May 30, 2012.

Following the remand of CAIR, the EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the eastern United States.See76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011 (“the Transport Rule,” also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, the EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal than would source-specific BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies.See76 FR 82219. The EPA finalized that rule on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 33642). Based on this finding, the EPA also revised the RH Rule (RHR) to allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART.

Also on December 30, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule (including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging the Transport Rule.EME Homer Cityv.EPA,No. 11-1302 (Order).

In this action, the EPA is finalizing a partial limited approval and a partial disapproval of Louisiana's June 13, 2008 RH SIP revision. With one difference, we are finalizing our action as proposed. As discussed below, we are slightly adjusting our action on the LA RH SIP with respect to the LDEQ's BART determination for the Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (Rhodia). We proposed to find the BART evaluation for Rhodia is deficient because the LDEQ's RH submittal does not analyze controls for the subject-to-BART unit using the factors required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). Having considered the public comments, we find that Rhodia's subject-to-BART unit meets the RH requirements specified in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) for an adequate BART evaluation; however the Rhodia BART determination still fails to meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e) to include the emissions limits in the SIP. See our response to comment 6 in section III for further discussion of our findings for Rhodia. Also, this action acknowledges that Louisiana has satisfied the requirement to consider smoke management techniques, including plans, because Louisiana has finalized its SMP (see the docket for this action, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510, for Louisiana's SMP).

The EPA is finalizing a partial limited approval of Louisiana's RH SIP revision. This partial limited approval results in approval of all of the remaining elements of Louisiana's RH SIP.3 The EPA is taking this approach because Louisiana's SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the state and having federal approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being included in Louisiana's SIP.

The EPA is also finalizing a partial disapproval of Louisiana's RH SIP revision insofar as this SIP revision relies on deficient BART evaluations for four non-electric generating unit (non-EGU) subject-to-BART sources. The legal effect of the final partial disapproval for Louisiana's June 13, 2008, SIP revision is to provide the EPA authority to issue a FIP at any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than two years after the effective date of the EPA's final action. 42 USC 7410(c)(1); CAA 110(c)(1).

Note that in another action, signed May 30, 2012, the EPA finalized its finding that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies.See77 FR 33642. In that action, the EPA finalized a limited disapproval4 of Louisiana's June 13, 2008, RH SIP revision insofar as those revisions rely on the CAIR to address the impact of emissions from the State's electric generating units (EGUs). However, that action did not finalize a FIP for Louisiana. The legal effect of that final limited disapproval for Louisiana's June 13, 2008, SIP revision is to provide the EPA authority to issue a FIP at any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than two years after the effective date of the EPA's final action.

Specifically, the EPA is finalizing a partial limited approval and a partial disapproval of a revision to the Louisiana SIP submitted by the State of Louisiana on June 13, 2008, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. In this action, the EPA grants a partial limited approval of the LA RH SIP submittal for meeting the requirements of: 51.308(d), for the core requirements for regional haze SIPs, except for the requirements of 51.308(d)(3); 51.308(f), for the commitment to submit comprehensive periodic revisions of regional haze SIPs; 51.308(g), for the commitment to submit periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals (RPGs); 51.308(h), for the commitment to conduct periodic determinations of the adequacy of the existing regional haze SIP; and 51.308(i), for coordination with state and Federal Land Managers. However, in this action the EPA is also partially disapproving the LA RH SIP submittal because it does not include fully approvable measures for meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), long-term strategy for regional haze as it relies on deficient non-EGU BART analyses; and 51.308(e), BART requirements for regional haze visibility impairment with respect to emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from four non-EGUs.

The EPA received four sets of comments on the February 28, 2012, rulemaking proposing a partial limited approval and a partial disapproval of Louisiana's June 13, 2008 SIP revision.Specifically, the comments were received from the National Parks Service; the LDEQ; Exxon Mobil Corporation; and Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network. Full sets of the comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) are provided in the docket for today's final action. The docket for this action is available atwww.regulations.govunder Docket Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510. A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1:The EPA does not have the authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval of Louisiana's RH SIP. The CAA provides that the EPA can approve a SIP submittal in whole or can approve part of a submittal and disapprove the other parts. CAA section 110(k)(3). But the CAA says nothing about allowing the EPA to grant a “limited approval.”

Response 1:The EPA disagrees with the comment that the EPA lacks the authority to give limited approval of Louisiana's RH SIP. As discussed in the September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum cited in the proposed rulemaking,5 although section 110(k) of the CAA may not expressly provide authority for limited approvals, the plain language of section 301(a) does provide “gap-filling” authority authorizing the Agency to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out” the EPA's CAA functions. The EPA may rely on section 301(a) in conjunction with the Agency's SIP approval authority in section 110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals where it has determined that a submittal strengthens a given state SIP and that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA are not separable from the provisions that do not meet the CAA's requirements. The EPA has adopted the limited approval approach numerous times in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years. Limited approval is appropriate for part of the SIP submittal here because the EPA has determined that a portion of Louisiana's SIP revisions addressing regional haze, as a whole, strengthen the State's SIP and because the provisions in the SIP revisions that relate to BART for EGUs are not separable. Further, this limited approval complements the national “Better-than-BART” action, which proposed a limited disapproval for the LA RH SIP due to its reliance on the remanded CAIR for BART for EGUs. Adopting the Commenter's position would ignore CAA section 301 and violate the “`fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme'. * * * A court must therefore interpret the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,' * * * and `fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.'”FDAv.Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davisv.Michigan Dept. of Treasury,489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989),Gustafsonv.Alloyd Co.,513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), andFTCv.Mandel Brothers, Inc.,359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)).

Comment 2:The EPA cannot partially approve or partially disapprove a RH SIP without evaluating Louisiana's proposed SIP as a whole. The EPA has proposed to issue a FIP to address the deficiencies in Louisiana's SIP associated with the BART requirements for NOXfor EGUs, but did not propose a FIP for the EGU BART requirements for SO2. Accordingly, Louisiana and the EPA must issue BART determinations for SO2at each source subject to BART, including those EGUs subject to the Transport Rule. Because of this bifurcated treatment, the proposed partial SIP violates the CAA and RHR because the EPA failed to evaluate, let alone determine, whether exempting Louisiana EGUs from BART complies with the CAA's reasonable progress mandate. To meet the 2064 goal, a regional haze plan must include two components: BART limits and a long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress toward that goal. Because BART is a critical component to achieving reasonable progress, neither the states nor the EPA can exempt sources from the RHR's BART requirements without any consideration of how doing so will affect the overarching reasonable progress mandate. All required components of a RH SIP or FIP affect each other, are part of a “single administrative action,” and must be evaluated together to determine compliance with the CAA and RHR. The EPA has failed to account for how, in the absence of relied upon SO2reductions anticipated under CAIR, it will maintain its uniform rate of progress. The EPA's failure to consider together the proposed alternative BART program, BART for SO2, the LTS and RPGs in Louisiana's SIP violates the CAA and RHR and is arbitrary and capricious.

Response 2:We have evaluated the LA RH SIP submittal as a whole and at this time we are taking final action on all elements of the LA RH SIP submittal that were not addressed in the national Better-than-BART rule. Louisiana must consider whether EGUs previously covered by the CAIR, whether subject to BART or not, should be controlled to ensure reasonable progress to meet the State's long-term strategies. However, insofar as Louisiana's LTS and RPGs are affected by the remand of CAIR, those issues are addressed in the national Better-than-BART rulemaking and are outside the scope of this action on the remainder of the LA RH SIP. Also, the CAA expressly provides authority to the EPA to partially approve and partially disapprove a SIP revision. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). The EPA has adopted the partial approval approach numerous times in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years. Partial approval and partial disapproval is appropriate here because the EPA has determined that a portion of Louisiana's RH SIP meets regional haze requirements and a portion of it does not. Additionally, the EPA has discretion to issue an immediate FIP for all or part of the deficiencies in the LA RH SIP; however, the EPA is not under an obligation to promulgate a FIP for any part of the LA RH SIP at this time because the FIP clock has not begun yet. See Section II of this action for additional information about the FIP. While the EPA proposed a FIP for Louisiana for NOXBART for EGUs, the final national Better-than-BART rule does not include a FIP for NOXBART for EGUs.6 Without a FIP, the Louisiana RH SIP contains a gap for NOXBART for EGUs. Additionally, because no FIP was promulgated for SO2in Louisiana, the Louisiana RH SIP contains a gap for SO2BART for EGUs. Therefore, Louisiana must submit and the EPA must approve a revised SIP submittal to address both NOXand SO2BART for EGUs to cure the deficiencies in the SIP resulting from the remand of CAIR. Louisiana may elect to rely on the Transport Rule for NOXBART for EGUs in that submittal. However, because Louisiana is not covered under the Transport Rule for SO2, the State must submit source-specific SO2BART evaluations for the subject-to-BART EGUs in Louisiana. As discussed further in our responses to several comments below, Louisiana must also submit revisions sufficient to cure the deficiencies in the non-EGU BART determinations.

Comment 3:The EPA should not finalize a limited disapproval of the LTS in the LA RH SIP based on theTransport Rule. The Transport Rule is currently in litigation and has been stayed by the Court. The EPA cannot legally base a SIP action on a regulation that is not effective and that may be vacated and remanded. Limited disapproval of the LA RH SIP submittal will trigger the “two year sanction clock” imposed by the CAA. The State will be required to submit a SIP revision, with the EPA review and approval within two years of the denial when the “applicable standard” is still unknown at this time. Instead, the CAIR is currently effective and will continue to be implemented by the EPA, the States, and the regulated community indefinitely. Once the question of regional transport of particulate matter (PM) and PM precursors is resolved and a regulation replaces CAIR, the State will submit a SIP revision to implement BART for EGUs in accordance with provisions of the new program. However, until this question is resolved, Louisiana and its regulated entities are obligated to comply with the effective regulation and so is the EPA. The State and its regulated entities are entitled to rely upon the effective regulation as the basis for the EPA action concerning the Louisiana SIP. The EPA is compelled to approve the current LA RH SIP submittal that relies on CAIR and the EPA's prior determination that CAIR is equivalent to BART.

Response 3:In a separate action that revises the RHR and finds that the Transport Rule is better than BART we finalized a limited disapproval of Louisiana's long-term strategy.See77 FR 33642. The docket for that rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729) is available at www.regulations.gov. For that reason, we are not taking action on the long-term strategy in this action insofar as the LA RH SIP relied on the CAIR. Therefore, the comment that the EPA should not disapprove the LA RH LTS based on the State's reliance on the CAIR is outside the scope of this action. Additionally, we clarify that today's final action on the remainder of LA's RH SIP triggers a two-year FIP clock,7 but does not start a sanctions clock for Louisiana.8 See Section II of this action for additional information about the FIP.

While the comment is outside the scope of this action, we note that CAIR has been remanded and only remains in place temporarily; therefore, the EPA cannot fully approve the regional haze SIP revisions that have relied on the now-temporary reductions from CAIR. Although CAIR is currently in effect as a result of the December 30, 2011 Order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit staying the Transport Rule, this does not affect the substance of the D.C. Circuit's ruling in 2008 remanding CAIR to the EPA. Additionally, in the Transport Rule, the EPA determined that Louisiana need not be covered for SO2controls to prevent impacts on PM nonattainment or maintenance in other states. As a result of the CAIR remand and the SO2finding for Louisiana in the Transport Rule, no national rule addresses SO2reductions in Louisiana. We recognize that the final outcome of the PM transport requirements that CAIR and the Transport Rule are designed to address is uncertain at this time. However, the applicable standard for BART is certain under the RHR. Thus, notwithstanding the uncertain status of the Transport Rule and the continued implementation of CAIR, Louisiana must address SO2BART in order to comply with the RHR. We believe that Louisiana should be working to address SO2BART on a source by source basis.

Comment 4:The Commenter opposes the EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is better than BART and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Louisiana and other states subject to the Transport Rule. The Commenter incorporates its comments on that December 30, 2011, rulemaking by reference and outlines several of those comments, including its arguments that the Transport Rule is not better than BART, and that the EPA cannot rely on the Transport Rule as an alternative program or measure to displace BART requirements for those BART-eligible sources in Transport Rule states.

Response 4:These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In today's rule, the EPA is taking final action on the proposed partial limited approval and partial disapproval of Louisiana's RH SIP. The EPA did not propose to find that participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this action. As noted above, EPA made that proposed finding in a separate action on December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and incorporating its comments on that separate action. EPA addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final action that was signed on May 30, 2012.See77 FR 33642. The EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 atwww.regulations.gov.

Comment 5:The commenter objects to the EPA's limited approval of portions of LA's RH SIP because it replaces reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Transport Rule for NOXemissions from EGUs. 77 FR 11839, 11840-41. The effect of this proposed rule is to exempt Louisiana EGUs from the RHR's requirements for case-by-case, source-specific analyses and installation and operation of BART to reduce NOXand achieve the RHR's visibility mandates. This exemption is based on the EPA's proposed finding that the Transport Rule would be better than BART at making reasonable progress with regard to NOXemissions toward achieving the RHR's goal of eliminating human caused visibility impairment at Class I areas by 2064. Id. at 11846; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) (criteria for determining if an alternative measure is better than BART). But the EPA's proposed Better-than-BART rule as applied to all 28 states covered under the Transport Rule, including Louisiana, is inconsistent with the CAA. The EPA has not complied with the CAA's statutory requirements for a BART exemption, has failed to make a state-by-state demonstration that the Transport Rule is better than BART, and has included fatal methodological flaws in its proposed determination. Additionally, the EPA's determination fails to account for the geographic and temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions under the Transport Rule—uncertainties inherent in a cap-and-trade program. Moreover, Louisiana cannot rely on the Transport Rule to exempt Louisiana's EGUs from the RHR's BART requirements because the D.C. Circuit has indefinitely stayed the rule. The Transport Rule's uncertainties and lack of year round emission reduction requirements make it unsuitable as a BART alternative in Louisiana. Moreover, the application of the Transport Rule as a substitute for source specific BART is uniquely and particularly problematic in Louisiana, and four other states (Florida, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Arkansas) for which the EPA exempts sources from BART NOXrequirements, because NOXemissions are only covered by the Transport Rule during the ozone season—less than half the year. Finally, the national rule expressly states that the EPA is taking no action on the RPGs, effectively making it impossible to determine whether the Transport Rule for an ozone season only state could achieve greater reasonable progress than an absent or unconfirmed goal. See 76 FR 82219, at 82221. Absent a uniform rate of progress calculation, LTS, or RPGs, the EPA has no rational basis to determine that the Transport Ruleemissions controls are sufficient to comply with the RHR reasonable progress mandate. The commenter also incorporated by reference comments from Earthjustice on the national Better-than-BART proposed rule and comments from National Parks Conservation Association, et al. For the reasons stated above and the reasons provided in the national comments, the Transport Rule does not satisfy the requirements of the RHR, and cannot be approved as a substitute for BART as proposed. Instead, the EPA must promulgate a regional haze plan that contains all aspects of the State's regional haze plan including source-specific NOXBART limits for the Louisiana EGUs.

Response 5:As discussed above, in today's rule, the EPA is taking final action on the proposed partial limited approval and partial disapproval of Louisiana's RH SIP. These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final action that was signed on May 30, 2012.See77 FR 33642. The EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 atwww.regulations.gov.Additionally, insofar as this comment discusses regional haze actions for states other than Louisiana, the comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment 6:The EPA proposed that the BART determination for Rhodia is deficient at this time. The SIP includes a BART analysis for Rhodia that the LDEQ feels is complete. The analysis takes into account all available control technologies for removing SO2at the affected units. All of the available control technologies provide a control efficiency of approximately 94%. Rhodia considered three abatement alternatives: double absorption, sodium scrubbing (caustic/soda ash), and ammonia scrubbing. Rhodia selected caustic scrubbing as the most effective control option that is also cost effective. This control strategy is currently in place for Unit 2 and will be in place for Unit 1 by May 2012. SO2emissions will be reduced from over 8,800 tons per year (tpy) to a permit limit of 1,075 tpy for the units combined. This control not only meets BART but surpasses the control for new facilities under New Source Performance Standards. Modeling results with the SO2controls show all impacts of Rhodia to the Breton and Caney Creek Wilderness Areas are below 0.5 deciviews. The LDEQ believes that this source has the most stringent control strategy available and no further BART analysis is necessary as allowed by 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y(IV)(D)(1)(9). The LDEQ anticipates that the controls will be installed for Unit 1 prior to the EPA approval of the LA RH SIP submittal. The controls will be required to be diligently maintained and are federally enforceable through Section 905 of the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC), Title 33, Part III (denoted LAC 33:III.905), which has been approved as part of the Louisiana SIP. The EPA should approve this BART analysis as it fulfills the BART requirements.

Response 6:The LDEQ's RH SIP submittal properly identified Rhodia as a subject-to-BART source and provided information concerning the BART determination for Rhodia. We proposed to find that Rhodia's BART determination was deficient because it does not include a sufficient evaluation under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The LDEQ has determined that the control strategy selected for implementation by Rhodia is among the most stringent available. The LDEQ's determination is corroborated by the information provided in the LA RH SIP submittal, including a determination that Rhodia's units are subject-to-BART and the demonstration in the LA RH SIP Appendix G that the control strategies at Rhodia have approximately 94% control efficiency.9 The EPA finds that with the control strategy selected, the Rhodia units meet the BART requirements at 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.OV.D.1.910 with the exception of having enforceable emissions limits for regional haze in the SIP (see also response to Comment 11 in this action). Although the SIP submittal said that, post-control, Rhodia is no longer subject-to-BART, that determination is not approvable because once a unit is determined to be subject to BART, it must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). However, the LDEQ's comment letter in part addresses this deficiency in its determination that with controls, Rhodia meets BART. As indicated in the proposal, the LDEQ did not submit a complete BART evaluation for the Rhodia units; the submittal did not analyze controls for the units using the factors as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). However, with the LDEQ's finding that the controls at Rhodia are among the most stringent, the regional haze requirement for a BART analysis has been satisfied (however, the requirement for enforceable emissions limits is still not met).11 The EPA finds that the LDEQ acted reasonably within its discretion in determining that the controls selected by Rhodia are among the most stringent because the control efficiency for the technology selected is 94%.

However, the emissions limits for Rhodia's subject-to-BART units were not included in the RH SIP, so the LDEQ must include the BART emission limits in the LA RH SIP through a SIP revision.12 More information about this requirement is provided in response to Comment 7 in this action.

Comment 7:The EPA proposed that the state should have identified the Mosaic facility as being subject to BART and made a BART determination for the source. The LDEQ agrees that Mosaic should be identified as a BART facility. Mosaic has installed or is scheduled to install controls required by a Consent Decree (CD) for Sulfuric Acid Trains A, D, and E. Only Train A is subject to BART, but it should be noted that significant reductions have been made on Trains D and E also. The following is a summary of these controls:

The LDEQ believes that this source has the most stringent control strategy available and no further BART analysis is necessary as allowed by 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y(IV)(D)(1)(9). The scrubber system has been installed on Train A. The controls are required to be diligently maintained and are federally enforceable through LAC 33:III.905, which has been approved by the EPA aspart of the Louisianan SIP. The EPA should approve this BART analysis as it fulfills the BART requirements.

Response 7:The EPA acknowledges the LDEQ's agreement that Mosaic is a subject-to-BART source. However, we cannot approve the BART analysis at this time. The LDEQ did not identify Mosaic as being subject to BART in the submitted SIP and therefore did not perform a BART analysis. Consequently, the EPA cannot act today upon the information in the comments because there is no logical outgrowth. “A final rule is only a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule if interested parties should have anticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably should have filed their comments on the subject during the notice-and-comment period. * * * Notice of the agency's intention is crucial to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment * * * to ensure fairness to affected parties, and * * * to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Americav.Mine Safety and Health Admin.,626 F.3d 84, 94-95 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Americav.Mine Safety and Health Admin.,407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). With regard to Mosaic, we proposed to disapprove the LA RH SIP submitted June 13, 2008 because the submittal failed to identify Mosaic as a subject-to-BART source. We noted that, once the LDEQ identifies Mosaic as subject to BART, the LDEQ needs to provide a BART evaluation for the EPA's review and action. The LDEQ has not completed the rulemaking and SIP revision process for the determination that Mosaic is subject to BART or for the Mosaic BART evaluation. Based on our proposal, the public could not have anticipated that the EPA would approve the state's identification of Mosaic as subject to BART and approve a BART evaluation for Mosaic. As a result, approval of Mosaic does not meet the standard for logical outgrowth for this final action. The LDEQ will need to revise its SIP after notice and comment to include Mosaic as a subject-to-BART source, and also to provide a determination of BART based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for the facility.13 Although the LDEQ provided a determination in its comment that the control strategies selected for implementation by Mosaic are among the most stringent available, as discussed previously for the EPA to be able to consider this determination, the SIP must be revised after notice and comment to include the identification of Mosaic as a subject-to-BART source, and include a BART evaluation for the facility and be submitted to the EPA. The BART evaluation may include relevant permit information if applicable.

For Mosaic, in addition to including the facility as a subject-to-BART source in the SIP, for the unit subject to BART for each pollutant, there must be sufficient information in the SIP to satisfy the requirement under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A): “The determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable. In this analysis, the state must take into consideration the technology available, the cost of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.”

Also, the emissions limits for Mosaic's controls are required to be included in the RH SIP, so the LDEQ must include the BART emission limits in the LA RH SIP through a SIP revision.14 More information about this requirement is provided in response to Comment 8 in this action.

Comment 8:The EPA proposed that the BART determinations for Sid Richardson are deficient at this time. The LDEQ has determined that while SO2controls may be technically feasible, they are not economically feasible. Modeling results for Sid Richardson show that in only 1 of the 3 modeled years did the 98th percentile day show a visibility impact above 0.5 dv. Sid Richardson provided a detailed analysis of the cost associated with implementing the technically feasible control techniques. Because all of the possible controls were deemed economically infeasible, an evaluation of the controls on the visibility impact at Breton is unnecessary. Sid Richardson is currently controlling SO2by limiting sulfur content of the feed stock oil. The LDEQ has determined that this control is BART for this facility. The EPA should approve this BART analysis as it fulfills the BART requirements. The EPA is proposing that the NOXBART determination for Sid Richardson is deficient at this time.

The LDEQ has determined that NOXcontrols for Sid Richardson are technically infeasible. Sid Richardson presented detailed information in the BART analysis discussing the infeasibility of NOXcontrols aside from good combustion practices. NOXcontrols were determined to be infeasible for the following reasons: Reactors: combustion modifications would affect the reaction process and ultimately, the yield and quality of the carbon black produced; selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is infeasible because the reagent (urea or ammonia) would affect the yield and quality of the carbon black produced; selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is infeasible because of particulate loading that could come in contact with the catalyst causing a fire hazard; Absorption control is already in use since the flue gases are already in direct contact with the carbon black; Wet chemical scrubbers are used in a limited number of industrial applications and have not been used in the carbon black industry. Flares: There are no NOXcontrol options available. Dryers: Combustion modifications would affect the yield and quality of the carbon black produced; SNCR is infeasible because the reagent (urea or ammonia) would affect the yield and quality of the carbon black produced; SCR is infeasible because of particulate loading that could come in contact with the catalyst causing a fire hazard; Absorption control is already in use since the flue gases are already in direct contact with the carbon black. The LDEQ stated that further BART analysis for NOXcontrol is unnecessary and that the EPA should approve this BART analysis as it fulfills the BART requirements.

Response 8:The EPA disagrees that the information provided in the SIP and comments for SO2BART for Sid Richardson satisfies the requirements for a BART determination. The BART Rule provides that for each unit subject to BART, the state must satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) by providing a determination of BART which “must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable.” In this analysis the state must take the following into consideration: “The technology available, the cost of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.” A determination of economic infeasibility is not sufficient information to meet these requirements. States have a duty to evaluate the statutory factors cited above.15 It is important that, in analyzing the technology, states take into account the most stringent emission control level that the technology is capable of achieving. States should consider the level of control that is currently achievable at the time the BART analysis is conducted.16 The CAA gives states discretion to make BART determinations; and the BART regulations and the preambles to the proposed and final BART Rule contain examples showing that a state has discretion to choose an alternative control level after considering the five statutory factors. However, section 169A(g) of the CAA requires States to consider these statutory factors in determining BART for affected sources. If a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors demonstrates that an emission limit is BART for the subject-to-BART source in question, then the State must require the source to comply with such emission limit. The EPA agrees that states have considerable discretion in making BART determinations, but in doing so the State must conduct a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA.

Also, the LDEQ states in the comment that Sid Richardson is currently controlling SO2by limiting sulfur content of the feed stock oil, and as indicated in the LA RH SIP Appendix G, the limitation is already reflected in the Addis Plant's emission limits;17 however, the record does not provide material that supports this conclusion. No enforceable permit conditions or similar restrictions were provided, nor is there an analysis demonstrating that limiting of the sulfur content of the feed stock oil meets BART requirements.

The EPA agrees with the comment that the modeling results show that the Sid Richardson facility has a visibility impact greater than the State's established BART threshold of 0.5 dv in one of the three years considered. As such, Sid Richardson is subject to BART, and a full BART analysis is required. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) and (ii), the LDEQ chose a 0.5 dv threshold for BART (LA RH SIP Chapter 9); included Sid Richardson in its list of BART-eligible sources within the State, and provided a determination of BART for the facility as required for each source in the State “that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal Area. All such sources are subject to BART.”18 The LDEQ determined that Sid Richardson is subject-to-BART because it is a BART-eligible source with visibility impacts on the 98th percentile day above the state's chosen threshold, LA RH SIP Chapter 9, page 53.19 The EPA disagrees with the comment that an evaluation of the visibility benefits is not necessary. “CAA section 169A(g)(2) clearly requires an evaluation of the expected degree of improvement in visibility from BART controls. All five statutory factors [required under CAA 169A(g)(2)], including cost-effectiveness and expected visibility improvement, should be reflected in the level of BART control that the State implements.” 70 FR 39104, at 39129. Sid Richardson was determined to be subject-to-BART and a full BART analysis is required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).

The EPA disagrees that the information provided in the SIP and comments for NOXBART for Sid Richardson satisfies the requirements for a BART determination. For Sid Richardson for NOX, the LDEQ states in its comments that all controls are infeasible, which is consistent with the SIP submittal (LA RH SIP Chapter 9 states that the Sid Richardson engineering analyses included the potential installation of NOXadd-on controls, but it determined that all were infeasible—there were no demonstrated NOXscrubbing technologies at any carbon black plants). However, there is not sufficient information in the comment letter or in the LA RH SIP submittal to support this conclusion. In particular, we note that SCR has been discounted as technically infeasible because of the potential for particulate matter to contact the catalyst. We believe there are a number of applications where SCR has been used in situations with high particulate loading such as Fluidized Bed Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU). In fact, as discussed in the Louisiana SIP and in other sections of this action, ConocoPhillips is a subject-to-BART source that has installed SCR on an FCCU. It is not apparent why this technology would not be applicable to carbon black plants, as well, given the similar high particulate matter situations. We do not believe Louisiana provided a sufficient record to justify that SCR is infeasible for the Carbon Black Industry. Therefore, the state must satisfy the requirement for NOXfor Sid Richardson for an “analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable” as required under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).

Also, the emission limits for Sid Richardson's controls are required to be included in the RH SIP, so the LDEQ must include the BART emission limits in the LA RH SIP through a SIP revision.20 In addition, we encourage Sid Richardson and the LDEQ to consider achievable emissions reductions in determining emissions limits for this unit to include in the SIP, as required under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). More information about this requirement is provided in response to Comment 9 in this action.

Comment 9:The EPA proposed that the BART determination for ConocoPhillips is deficient at this time. The SIP includes a BART analysis for ConocoPhillips that the LDEQ feels is complete. Conoco has installed or is scheduled to install controls required by a consent decree with the EPA21 for the FCCU, process refinery flares and the crude unit heater. The following is a summary of these controls.

• A wet gas scrubber was installed on the FCCU in 2009 that reduced SO2emissions by 2,500 tpy and PM emissions by 220 tpy. SCR is scheduled to be installed by 2015 that will reduce NOXemissions by 760 tpy.

• SCR and a NOXCEMS were installed on the crude unit heater in 2009 that reduced NOXemissions by 700 tpy.

• Flare gas recovery was installed for the process refinery flares in 2011 that reduced NOXemissions by 16 tpy and SO2emissions by 330 tpy.

The LDEQ believes that the most stringent controls available have been installed or are scheduled to be installedon these sources. According to 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y(IV)(D)(1)(9) because the source will have the most stringent controls available, it is not necessary to comprehensively complete each step of the BART analysis. The EPA should approve this BART analysis as it fulfills the BART requirements.

The EPA proposed to accept the BART analysis for remaining sources at the facility. However, most of these sources have a “D” which represents proposed disapproval in Table 10 of the TSD. The LDEQ feels that no further BART analysis is necessary for ConocoPhillips and requests that the “D” be changed to “NA.”

Response 9:We disagree with the comment that the BART evaluation for ConocoPhillips is complete for the subject-to-BART units that were included in the 2005 CD. Although some emissions reduction information was provided for some of the units and controls, without information about the year or baseline emissions, the EPA is unable to verify the determination that the control technologies and emission limits for SO2,NOX, and PM selected for the crude unit heater, the CO boilers, and the flares are among the most stringent. The submittal did not analyze controls for the units using the factors as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). Although the LDEQ provided a determination in its comment that the control strategies selected for implementation by ConocoPhillips are among the most stringent available, the record does not provide sufficient material to support the LDEQ's conclusion. The BART evaluation may include relevant permit information if applicable, and also may include a demonstration of emissions reductions achieved by the selected technologies. It is expected that emissions reductions for control technologies which are among the most stringent will be high unless the LDEQ can demonstrate that lower efficiency rates are sufficient to meet BART requirements.

For ConocoPhillips, for the five units under the CD that are subject to BART, for each pollutant, there is not sufficient information in the SIP nor in the comments to satisfy the requirement under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A): “The determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable. In this analysis the state must take into consideration the technology available, the cost of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.”

Also, the emissions limits for ConocoPhillips's controls are required to be included in the RH SIP, so the LDEQ must include the BART emission limits in the LA RH SIP through a SIP revision.22 In addition, we encourage ConocoPhillips and the LDEQ to consider achievable emissions reductions in determining emissions limits for this unit to include in the SIP, as required under 40 CFR 50.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). More information about this requirement is provided in response to Comment 10 in this action.

For the ConocoPhillips units which were not part of the CD, the Commenter is correct that the EPA proposed to accept the BART analysis for those units, and that Table 10 of the TSD is in error for those units. Accordingly, the EPA has revised the table and an updated Table 10 is provided in the docket associated with this action as an amendment to the TSD.

Comment 10:The EPA should provide clarification that the CAA and the RHR both allow states the discretion to make BART determinations for non-EGUs, and states are not required to use the “5-step” analysis that is specifically required only for 750 MW+ EGUs. The proposal contains statements such as: “* * * all subject to BART sources are required to comply with the five BART factors (or steps). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).” Additionally, the commenter is concerned that the EPA proposed to find that Louisiana's RPGs and LTS contain deficiencies because they are based on BART determinations that are not fully approvable. Louisiana has met the obligation to determine BART for Louisiana refineries if they have documented the rationale for the BART determinations using their state authority. CAA section 169(b)(2)(A); 77 FR 3966, at 3969. Some of the subject-to-BART determinations with a proposed disapproval are not EGUs. Therefore, the LDEQ has the discretion to make BART determinations in a fashion reasonable in the judgment of the LDEQ and supply the rationale to the EPA. The EPA has accepted states' BART determinations for non-EGUs not subject to the “5-step” analysis. For example, the EPA proposed to approve Illinois's BART determinations for two petroleum refineries on the basis that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency found that the emissions limits for the subject-to-BART units established by CDs to meet BACT also satisfy BART. That proposal further states that the CDs are federally enforceable and the emissions limits at issue must be incorporated into federally enforceable permits. 77 FR 3966, at 3973. Therefore, the EPA should approve Louisiana's non-EGU BART determinations, especially the ConocoPhillips Refinery, that rely on emissions limits established by CDs.

Response 10:We agree with the commenter that the five steps in the BART guidelines at 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.IV.D23 are mandatory only for subject-to-BART EGUs with a total generating capacity greater than 750 MWs. However, “all BART determinations must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible source that is subject to BART within the state.” For all BART determinations, including those for non-EGUs, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states to consider the following factors: the technology available; the costs of compliance; the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; any pollution control equipment in use at the source; the remaining useful life of the source; and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.See also,42 USC 7941(g)(2); CAA 169A(g)(2). The submitted BART analyses should address all of these factors or provide some other basis for ensuring subject-to-BART units meet BART in order to be approvable. The commenter contends that the LDEQ has the discretion to make BART determinations in a fashion reasonable in the judgment of the LDEQ. To clarify, states are free to determine the weight and significance of each of the factors listed above, but they must arrive at a reasoned determination that is supported by an adequate record. We acknowledge that BART-determining authorities presented with equivalent facts and circumstances may arrive at different, but reasoned, BART determinations. For additional information about our final action on these non-EGU BART determinations, please see our discussion of the non-EGU BART determinations and enforceable emissions limits for thosesubject-to-BART units addressed in our responses to Comments 6, 7, 8, and 9 in this action. Finally, we disagree with the comment that the EPA should approve Louisiana's non-EGU BART determinations that rely on emissions limits established by CDs. See the following response to Comment 11.

Comment 11:Emission limits for the subject-to-BART units should not be required to be included in the SIP. The emissions limitations are contained in the permits and are enforceable as required. Furthermore, the LDEQ will rely on the SIP approved provision contained in LAC. 33:111.905, which specifies that “* * * when facilities have been installed on a property, they shall be used and diligently maintained in proper working order whenever any emissions are being made which can be controlled by the facilities, even though the ambient air quality standards in affected areas are not exceeded.” If necessary, the LDEQ will include the CDs affected between the EPA and Rhodia, Mosaic and ConocoPhillips, respectively, as evidence of enforceable emissions limitation. However, the LDEQ will not attach the operating permits that are the result of these CDs.

Response 11:We disagree with the comment that emission limits for the subject-to-BART units should not be required to be included in the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e) requires the state to “submit an implementation plan containing emissions limits representing BART” for each subject-to-BART unit in the state. For an emissions limit contained in a federal CD to be a federally enforceable component of a RH SIP, the emissions limit itself must be incorporated into the SIP. States do have some flexibility in how this incorporation occurs. For example, a state could list the specific emissions limit for each subject-to-BART unit as part of the regulatory text in the SIP submittal or a state could incorporate these limits into its SIP submittal's regulatory text by referencing the federally enforceable Title I permit that contains the emissions limits for the subject-to-BART units at a facility.See e.g.,77 FR 19, January 3, 2012; 76 FR 80754, December 27, 2011; 76 FR 36329, June 22, 2011; and 76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011. If the state chooses to incorporate emissions limits from a Title I permit into the SIP, the permit conditions must require a RH SIP revision in order for the BART emissions limits to be revised. However, the CDs themselves are not adequate to ensure enforceable emissions limits remain in place for purposes of BART for several reasons. Courts and parties to the litigation can change the terms of CDs without revising the RH SIP or notifying the public that a BART requirement is being altered. Additionally, CDs are not effective forever. The terms of a CD are subsumed into a permit, which could be altered during the permitting process without revising the RH SIP or notifying the public that a BART requirement is being altered. Absent some express correlation to the LA RH SIP, the emissions limits required under the CDs are not adequately enforceable to ensure continued compliance with BART. Moreover, if the emissions limits in a CD are relied upon to meet BART, the RH SIP must contain sufficient technical information to ensure compliance with BART.

Comment 12:The commenter agrees that the LA RH SIP is deficient because elements of the State's BART evaluations and determinations are not fully adequate to meet the federal requirements. Additionally, as a result of the deficiencies related to BART, the LTS and RPGs are not fully adequate to meet federal requirements.

Response 12:We acknowledge the commenter's support for those aspects of this action. We note that, as indicated in the above responses to comments from the LDEQ regarding Rhodia, some but not all of the deficiencies were addressed by the LDEQ's comments although the emissions limits for Rhodia must be included in the SIP.

Comment 13:Insofar as the EPA proposed to find that elements of the SIP submittal fully satisfy the RHR requirements, the commenter supports the EPA's proposal.

Response 13:We acknowledge the commenter's support for those aspects of this action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,because this SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (i.e.,emission limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean that the EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA has determined that the disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action merely approves or disapproves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP submittals the EPA is approving or disapproving would not apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 . This SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on August 6, 2012.

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 4, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52, as amended June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33657 and effective August 6, 2012, is further amended as follows:

This is a summary of theCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderreleased on June 27, 2012. TheCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderand related Commission documents may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site:http://www.BCPIWEB.com.When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 12-70. TheCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderand related documents also are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site:http://wireless.fcc.govor by using the search function for WT Docket No. 10-208 on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page athttp://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

1. The Commission adopts a limited forbearance pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 160, from requiring that the service area of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) conform to the service area of any rural telephone company serving the same area, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b). In particular, this forbearance applies only with respect to conditional ETC designations for participating in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, ETC designations conditioned on receipt of Mobility Fund Phase I support. Such conditional ETC designations, and thus this forbearance, are also limited to the specific areas in which such an ETC becomes authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase I support.

2. The Commission concludes that forbearance in these limited circumstances furthers the public interest, advancing the Act's and the Commission's goals of promoting access to mobile service over current and next generation wireless networks in areas currently without such service by reducing barriers to participation in Phase I of the Mobility Fund. The Commission finds that application of the service area conformance requirements set forth in 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b) in these limited circumstances is not necessary to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable or to protect consumers. The Commission emphasizes that the forbearance it is granting is limited to petitioners seeking conditional designation as ETCs in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction and receive support. Parties petitioning for designation as an ETC for this purpose must satisfy all of the other statutory requirements applicable to ETCs under the Act. The forbearance order does not apply with respect to petitions for designation as an ETC for other purposes. In light of the requirement that, with one exception for Tribal entities, an applicant for the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, Auction 901, must be designated as an ETC in every geographic area on which it wishes to bid by the time it applies to participate and in light of the short time remaining before the July 11, 2012 deadline for filing Auction 901 applications, the Commission finds that case-by-case forbearance is not feasible and grant blanket forbearance for this limited purpose.

3. In the recentUSF/ICC Transformation Order,76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 81562, December 28, 2011, the Commission comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service system to ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixedand mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation. As part of this comprehensive reform effort, the Commission adopted the goal of ensuring universal availability of modern networks capable of providing advanced mobile voice and broadband service. To further achievement of that goal, the Commission created the Mobility Fund to ensure availability of mobile broadband networks in areas where a private-sector business case for those networks is lacking. In particular, the Commission provided that in Phase I of the Mobility Fund, it would award by reverse auction up to $300 million in one-time support to immediately accelerate deployment of current and next generation networks providing mobile voice and broadband services in areas not presently covered by such networks.

4. Auction 901 is scheduled to take place on September 27, 2012, and those wishing to participate must file an auction application by July 11, 2012. The Wireless Telecommunications and the Wireline Competition Bureaus (Bureaus) have identified, pursuant to the Commission's criteria, particular census blocks that are eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in Auction 901. In Auction 901, applicants will bid for the amount of support they need to meet the Mobility Fund Phase I service and other public interest obligations in the eligible census blocks covered by the geographic area on which they bid. Applicants, except for Tribally-owned and controlled entities, must be designated as ETCs in the areas on which they wish to bid prior to filing their auction applications. The designation may be conditional subject to the receipt of Mobility Fund Phase I support. The Commission currently has pending three petitions for conditional designation as an ETC for purposes of participating in Auction 901.

5. Congress directed the Commission to establish policies to help ensure that quality services are available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates and access to advanced telecommunications and information services are provided in all regions of the Nation. The Commission's Mobility Fund Phase I will help achieve this goal by providing support for the expansion of current and next generation wireless networks in areas currently unserved by such networks. 47 U.S.C. 254(e) provides that only an entity designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier shall be eligible for universal service high-cost and low-income support. To become an ETC, a carrier must offer and advertise the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms throughout its designated service area.

6. The Act and the Commission's rules define the termservice areaand how it is established for each ETC. An ETC'sservice areais a geographic area within which an ETC has universal service obligations and may receive universal service support. A carrier seeking to become an ETC typically requests designation in a specific service area, but it is the commission designating that carrier that establishes the ETC's service area. When a competitive carrier seeks to serve an area already served by a rural telephone company, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) requires that the competitive ETC's service area must conform to the rural telephone company's service area. Accordingly, if a commission wishes to designate a competitive ETC for an area that differs from a rural telephone company's existing service area, that rural service area must first be redefined under the process set forth under the Act.

7. The Act defines theservice areaof each rural telephone company's to be that company's study area unless and until the Commission and the States, after taking into account recommendations of a Federal-State Joint Board establish a different definition ofservice areafor such company. The Commission has interpreted this language to mean that neither the Commission nor the states may act alone to alter the definition of service areas served by rural carriers. In reviewing a potential redefinition of a rural service area in evaluating a request for ETC designation, the Commission and the states have traditionally taken into account the three factors recommended by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Cream skimming, the Act's special treatment of rural telephone companies, and the administrative burdens of redefinition. The Commission's rules set forth the procedures for considering redefinition petitions and allow either the state commission or the Commission to propose to redefine a rural telephone company's service area. A proposed redefinition, however, does not take effect until the Commission and the appropriate state commission agrees upon a new definition.

8. In theMobility Fund NPRM,75 FR 67060, November 1, 2010, the Commission sought comment generally on the ETC designation requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214(e) and on how best to interpret the provisions of that section so as to achieve the objectives of the Mobility Fund. A commenter suggested that the Commission should forbear altogether from the requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214(e) for purposes of participating in the Mobility Fund. The same commenter also noted that the service area conformance requirement of 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) could create uncertainty for potential Mobility Fund applicants and discourage participation, and suggested that the Commission take steps to prevent this from happening. Another commenter suggested that the Commission streamline the process of ETC designation to facilitate participation in the Mobility Fund, making the ETC designation process part of the application for Mobility Fund support, such that designation would occur upon award of support by the Commission. That commenter filed a petition for reconsideration of theUSF/ICC Transformation Orderthat proposed, for those seeking Mobility Fund Phase I support, blanket forbearance from the requirement that a competitive ETC's service area conform to any underlying rural telephone carrier's study area.

9. The Act allows the Commission to forbear from applying any requirement of the Act or of its regulations to a telecommunications carrier if the Commission determines that: (1) Enforcement of the requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is consistent with the public interest.

10. The Commission considers whether it should forbear from applying 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) service area conformance requirement to parties petitioning for ETC conditional designation in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction and receive such support. The Commission concludes that forbearance is appropriate and in the public interest under these limited circumstances. Accordingly, for the limited purpose of conditional designation as an ETC in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, the Commission forbears from applying 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b) insofar as those sections require that the service area of such an ETC conform to the service area of any rural telephone company. The Commission notes that forbearing from the conformancerequirements eliminates the need for redefinition of any rural telephone company service areas in the context of Mobility Fund Phase I. The Commission emphasizes that this decision does not change the requirements that apply if a party petitions to be an ETC for other purposes in part of a service area served by a rural telephone company.

11. The Commission concludes that blanket forbearance from the service area conformance requirement is warranted in these limited circumstances. The Mobility Fund Phase I rules require that most applicants must be designated as ETCs in every geographic area on which they wish to bid for support, prior to filing an Auction 901 application. Those rules also provide that a conditional designation is sufficient to meet the requirement, i.e., a designation effective only for the areas, if any, in which the ETC becomes authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase I support. The Commission finds that case-by-case forbearance is not feasible in the short time available before the filing deadline.

12. The Commission takes this action after considering the record it received in response to theMobility Fund NPRM,where the Commission sought comment on how to assure that the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 214(e) would align with the objectives of this new mechanism for providing high-cost universal service support. The record identified the possibility that the service area provisions of 47 U.S.C. 214(e), including the service area conformance requirement of that section could discourage participation in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction. By granting blanket forbearance of the conformance requirement for the limited purpose of petitions for conditional designation to participate in the auction, the Commission seeks to prevent that requirement from creating an obstacle to participation by any carrier considering it. Removing such disincentives to participation may increase competition in the auction resulting in lower bids for support and enabling greater coverage within the Mobility Fund Phase I budget. The Commission notes that by granting forbearance in these limited circumstances, it is allowing new ETCs, and those existing ETCs that wish to conditionally expand their service areas for Auction 901, to match their specific new and additional service areas to the geographic area for which they will incur obligations under Mobility Fund Phase I. The Commission does not address relinquishment or redefinition with respect to the service areas of existing ETCs with respect to new targeted support mechanisms other than Mobility Fund Phase I. To the extent that an existing ETC seeks Mobility Fund Phase I support for areas within its existing service area, the new obligations will apply only to the portion of their existing service area for which they win such support and will not have any impact on pre-existing obligations and support mechanisms with respect to the existing service area.

13.Just and Reasonable.47 U.S.C. 10(a)(1) requires that the Commission consider whether enforcement of the provisions from which forbearance is sought is necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. The Commission concludes that compliance with the service area conformance requirement of 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b) is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, and classifications of carriers conditionally designated as ETCs in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support for purposes of participation in Mobility Fund Phase I auction and receiving such support are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. The Commission finds that the three factors traditionally taken into account by the Commission and the states when reviewing a potential redefinition of a rural service area pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) no longer apply in the context of conditionally designating ETCs in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support for purposes of participation in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction. Forbearance from the service area conformance requirement would not prevent the Commission from enforcing 47 U.S.C. 201 or 202, which require all carriers to charge just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates. Moreover, all ETCs—whether rural ETCs or carriers designated as ETCs in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support for purposes of participation in Mobility Fund Phase I auction and receiving such support—will continue to be subject to the requirements of the Act and of the Commission's rules that consumers have access to reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable rates. In fact, the expansion of current and next generation wireless networks supported by Mobility Fund Phase I will expand the choice of telecommunications services for consumers in the relevant area. The resulting competition is likely to help ensure just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory offerings of services. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the first prong of 47 U.S.C. 10(a) is met.

14.Consumer Protection.47 U.S.C. 10(a)(2) requires that the Commission consider whether applying the service area conformance requirement to a mobile wireless voice service provider that seeks a conditional ETC designation in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support is necessary for the protection of consumers. Forbearance from the conformance requirement in these limited circumstances will not harm consumers currently served by the rural telephone companies in the relevant service areas. To the contrary, these consumers will benefit from the use of Mobility Fund Phase I support to expand current and next generation mobile services. Indeed, as the Commission has noted, the national goal of ubiquitous mobile broadband depends in part on offering targeted and efficient support for mobile services through the Mobility Fund. Finally, every ETC, including any party receiving Mobility Fund Phase I support, must certify that it will satisfy applicable consumer protection and service quality standards in its service area. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the second prong of 47 U.S.C. 10(a) is met.

15.Public Interest.47 U.S.C. 10(a)(3) requires that the Commission consider whether applying the service area conformance requirement to a facilities-based mobile wireless carrier that seeks conditional ETC designation in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in Mobility Fund Phase I and receive such support is in the public interest. Absent forbearance, the Commission finds that parties seeking support may be required to take on unsupported ETC obligations in portions of rural carriers' study areas—areas that may not be eligible for support or for which they may not win support—and that this is likely to discourage participation in Mobility Fund Phase I. Geographic eligibility for Mobility Fund Phase I support is based on whether specific census blocks are presently served by current or next generation wireless networks, a definition that is unrelated to the boundaries of rural carrier service areas. Moreover, the Commission's current rules to redefine service areas require concurring decisions by both the Commission and the related state commission, a process not likely to be completed before parties seeking Mobility Fund Phase I support will have to apply to participate in Auction 901. Hence, the Commission finds that forbearing from the conformance requirement will encourageparticipation by assuring that obligations of new ETCs will not extend to portions of rural service areas for which a new ETC may not receive support. By providing this assurance, the Commission reduces the cost of auction participation, encourage lower bids, and improve auction outcomes.

16. Enabling new ETC service areas to be defined in a more targeted manner for Mobility Fund Phase I is consistent with the Commission's approach of targeting support to areas with a specific need for the support, helps preserve those efficiencies, and thus serves the public interest. As set out in theUSF/ICC Transformation Order,Mobility Fund Phase I support will be determined by a competitive bidding process in which ETCs will bid for the support they need to serve a specific area, rather than any larger area such as an underlying rural telephone company study area. This targeted and efficient provision of support is critical to furthering the public interest goal of ubiquitous mobile service in a fiscally responsible manner. To require Mobility Fund Phase I support recipients to serve a wider area runs counter to the Commission's recent and ongoing efforts to serve the public interest by focusing USF resources on defined areas of need.

17. The public interest benefits go beyond efficiently expanding current and next generation wireless networks to expanding access to such services by consumers. An ETC with a conditional designation will have the obligations of any other ETC receiving Mobility Fund Phase I support for the areas in which the condition is satisfied, including an obligation to make available Lifeline service to eligible for low income consumers. Thus, an ETC expanding advanced wireless networks to new areas as part of the Mobility Fund Phase I also will be making their networks available to low-income consumers who may qualify to receive reduced charges for these next generation services.

18. In addition, the Commission finds that in these limited circumstances requiring conformance is not essential to protect the ability of rural telephone companies to continue to provide service. Past concerns that an ETC serving only a relatively low cost portion of a rural carrier's service area might cream skim by receiving per line support based on the rural carrier's costs of serving the entire area do not apply to Mobility Fund Phase I support. Unlike the legacy identical support rule, under which a competitive ETC received the same per-line support as an incumbent calculated based on the incumbent's cost of serving its entire service area, the amount of Mobility Fund Phase I support is not linked to the support received by an overlapping rural carrier but is determined by the results of competitive bidding for support. Consequently, cream skimming concerns that arose under the identical support rule are not relevant in considering the conditional designation of an ETC for purposes of seeking Mobility Fund Phase I support. Moreover, the Commission notes that it decided in theUSF/ICC Transformation Orderthat universal service would support both mobile and fixed services in a given area. Consequently, the Commission sees no inherent conflict between a mobile provider receiving support to offer previously unavailable service in a portion of a rural telephone company's study area and the rural telephone company continuing to provide its pre-existing service.

19. For similar reasons, the Commission concludes that forbearance in these circumstances will not harm competitive market conditions. The Commission expects forbearance to enhance competition by introducing new service providers and not to eliminate any existing market participants or to introduce concerns about cream skimming.

20. The Commission further notes that forbearance from the conformance requirement and redefinition process for these limited purposes should not affect rural carriers' abilities to serve the entire rural service territories. Moreover, the Act contains safeguards to address any such potential concerns. The Act already requires designating commissions to affirmatively determine that designating a carrier as an ETC within a rural service area is in the public interest, and this is not affected by this grant of forbearance.

21. Finally, forbearance in these limited circumstances preserves the role of states in ETC designation. State commissions are still required to consider the public interest, convenience and necessity of designating an ETC in a rural area already served by a rural telephone company. The Commission action does not disturb the roles of state commissions and of the Commission in the ETC designation process or in the redefinition process in other circumstances when redefinition is required.

22. TheCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderdoes not contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA generally defines small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small governmental jurisdiction. In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

24. The Commission certifies that forbearance decision in theCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderwill not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In theCAF/ICC Second Report and Order,the Commission eases the regulatory compliance burden on ETCs by forbearing from the requirement that the service area of an ETC conform to the service area of any rural telephone company serving the same area. TheCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderdoes not modify any of the Commission's reporting requirements. The Commission will send a copy of theCAF/ICC Second Report and Order,including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

25. The Commission will send a copy of theCAF/ICC Second Report and Orderto Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

26. The Commission concludes that good cause exists to make the forbearance adopted in theCAF/ICC Second Report and Ordereffective immediately upon publication in theFederal Registerpursuant to 47 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act and 47 CFR 1.103(a) and1.427(b). The grant of forbearance applies only to those seeking conditional ETC designation for areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, and, given the short time remaining before the July 11, 2012, deadline for filing an auction application, may promote wider participation and generate more competitive bids. In turn, this increases the chances that the Mobility Fund Phase I budget will provide greater benefits in the form of expanded coverage of mobile voice and broadband service. The Commission finds there is good cause to make the changes it implements with theCAF/ICC Second Report and Ordereffective uponFederal Registerpublication, without the usual 30-day period.

27. Accordingly,it is orderedthat, pursuant to the authority contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 4(j), 10, 214, and 254 as well as 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 160, 214, 254, the Commission forbears from applying the conformance requirement of 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b) to petitions for conditional designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support in order to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction and receive such support to the extent discussed herein.

28.It is further orderedthat, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 47 CFR 1.103(a) and 1.427(b) the order shall be effective upon publication in theFederal Register.

This document announces that, on June 21, 2012, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the enhanced disclosure requirement rules contained in the Commission'sOrder,FCC 12-44, published at 77 FR 27631, May 11, 2012. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0174 and 3060-0214. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 21, 2012, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 73.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0174 and 3060-0214.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number:3060-0214.

OMB Approval Date:June 21, 2012.

OMB Expiration Date:June 30, 2015.

Title:Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

Respondents/Affected Parties:Business or other for-profit entities; not for-profit institutions; individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses:24,558 respondents; 59,056 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:1 hour to 104 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308.

Total Annual Burden:2,158,080 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$882,236.00.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:The FCC is preparing a PIA.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The FCC is preparing a system of records, FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that may be included in the broadcast station public inspection files. Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:The Commission received final approval of the information collection requirements that were adopted in FCC 12-44 and contained in collection 3060-0214 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On April 27, 2012, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 00-168 and 00-44; FCC 12-44. This Order adopted information collection requirements that support the Commission's public file rules that are codified at 47 CFR 73.3526 and 73.3527. 47 CFR 73.3526 and 73.3527 require that licensees and permittees of commercial and noncommercial AM, FM and TV stations maintain a file for public inspection at its main studio or at another accessible location in its community of license. The contents of the file vary according to type of service and status. The contents include, but are not limited to, copies of certain applications tendered for filing, a statement concerning petitions to deny filed against such applications, copies of ownership reports, statements certifying compliance with filing announcements in connection with renewal applications, a list of donors supportingspecific programs, and a list of community issues addressed by the station's programming.

These rules also specify the length of time, which varies by document type, that each record must be retained in the public file. The public and FCC use the data to evaluate information about the licensee's performance and to ensure that station is addressing issues concerning the community to which it is licensed to serve.

The information collection requirements consist of:

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.1943(d), television station licensees or applicants must place the contents of its political file on the Commission's Web site on a going-forward basis. Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3526(b), commercial television station licensees or applicants must place the contents of their public inspection file as required by 47 CFR 73.3526(e) on the Commission's Web site, with the exception of letters and emails from the public as required by 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(9), which will be retained at the station. A station must also link to the public inspection file hosted on the Commission's Web site from the home page of its own Web site, if the station has a Web site. The Commission will automatically link the following items to the electronic version of all licensee and applicant public inspection files, to the extent that the Commission has these items electronically: Authorizations, applications, contour maps; ownership reports and related materials; portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity file held by the Commission; the public and broadcasting; Children's television programming reports; and DTV transition education reports.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3527(b) non-commercial educational television station licensees or applicants must place the contents of their public inspection file as required by 47 CFR 73.3527(e) on the Commission's Web site. A station must also link to the public inspection file hosted on the Commission's Web site from the home page of its own Web site, if the station has a Web site. The Commission will automatically link the following items to the electronic version of all licensee and applicant public inspection files, to the extent that the Commission has these items electronically: Contour maps; ownership reports and related materials; portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity file held by the Commission; and the public and broadcasting.

OMB Control Number:3060-0174.

OMB Approval Date:June 21, 2012.

OMB Expiration Date:June 30, 2015.

Title:Sections 73.1212, 76.1615 and 76.1715, Sponsorship Identification.

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Parties:Business or other for profit entities; individuals orhouseholds.

Number of Respondents and Responses:22,761 respondents and 1,831,610 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.0011 to .2011 hours.

Frequency of Response:Recordkeeping requirement; third party disclosure; on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden:242,633 hours.

Total Annual Costs:$33,828.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 4(i), 317 and 507 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The FCC is preparing a system of records, FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that may be included in the broadcast station public inspection files. Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s):The FCC is preparing a PIA.

Needs and Uses:The Commission received final approval of the information collection requirements that were adopted in FCC 12-44 and contained in collection 3060-0174 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On April 27, 2012, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 00-168 and 00-44; FCC 12-44. This Second Report and Order adopted information collection requirements that will change the availability of record disclosures under 47 CFR 73.1212. 47 CFR 73.1212(e)states that, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, the licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter in its public file.

The information collection requirements consist of:

Pursuant to the changes contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(e), this list, which could contain personally identifiable information, would be located in a public file to be located on the Commission's Web site instead of being maintained in the public file at the station. Burden estimates for this change are included in OMB Control Number 3060-0214.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management 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.

The allocation of Pacific ocean perch, in the Central Aleutian District, allocated as a directed fishing allowanceto vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as 438 metric tons (mt) by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Central Aleutian District by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of the Pacific ocean perch fishery in the Central Aleutian District by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 27, 2012. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management 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.

The 2012 TAC of Atka mackerel, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 951 metric tons by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Atka mackerel directed fishery in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 27, 2012. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.